View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
i
A systematic review of intervention research examining English language and literacy development in children with English as an Additional Language (EAL)
Professor Victoria A. Murphy
Adam Unthiah
University of Oxford
Department of Education
January 2015
ii
Executive Summary
Background to the report
This report is part of a larger project commissioned by three charitable groups (The Education
Endowment Foundation (EEF), Unbound Philanthropy and The Bell Foundation) to produce a
comprehensive review of the National Pupil Database (NPD) and a systematic review on relevant
research concerning pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL). The broad aim of this
overall report is to provide a helpful resource for teachers and schools in providing effective
support for children with EAL. The first part of this project was carried about by Strand, Malmberg
and Hall and reports on a detailed analysis of the National Pupil Database (NPD) and the
Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE) database with a view to identifying the
most at-risk groups of learners with EAL and predictors of low attainment for EAL pupils. In this
second part of the overall project we report on the results of a systematic review of the research
literature identifying what interventions have been carried out aimed at enhancing the English
language and/or literacy skills of children with EAL. The main questions addressed by this second
report were:
• What intervention research has been carried out since the year 2000 which has aimed at
improving English language and/or literacy skills in children with EAL?
• What is the strength of evidence of this research?
Furthermore, this review aims to identify which interventions might be most appropriate to
implement in the UK context to better support developing language, literacy, and in turn academic
performance, of children with EAL.
Methods used in the review
A number of databases were scanned with key search terms to identify which studies should be
reviewed. These databases include the AEI (Australian Education Index), BEI (British Education
Index), LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts), ERIC (Education Resources
Information Center) and Web of Science. These database searches were also supplemented by
hand-searching of a range of scholarly journals known to be publications in which such research
would appear (e.g., Reading and Writing; TESOL Quarterly, Elementary School Journal,
iii
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Bilingualism Research Journal, Early
Education and Development). This search yielded 975 distinct reports whose abstracts were
cross-referenced against inclusion and exclusion criteria to assess their relevance for the specific
aims of this review. A number of studies were eliminated because they failed to meet some of the
inclusion criteria (e.g., lack of appropriate control group, did not focus on an aspect of EAL
provision, did not include English language/literacy measures, targeted children with language
and/or learning impairments). Having applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 302 articles
remained for full-text access. Of these 302 articles, a further 258 were excluded due to failure to
meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This procedure left 44 studies appropriate for review and
which were included in the systematic key word map. A further 15 studies were excluded after
having applied the in-depth review criterion that only studies carried out in mainstream education
(i.e., not bilingual programmes/education) would be included. This process yielded a total of 29
studies to be included in the in-depth review.
Each study for the in-depth review was then assessed by two independent reviewers, both of
whom were experienced researchers in applied linguistics. Each reviewer assigned a rating for
four Weight of Evidence (WoE) criteria addressing the overall quality of the research, the
relevance of the research for the purposes of the review, the focus of evidence and an overall
judgment. Studies were further assessed across four different methodological criteria relating to
the study’s research design, sample size, level of participant attrition, and fidelity and validity.
Key findings
1. Of the 29 in-depth review studies, only two were carried out in contexts outside of the US
(one in the UK and one in Canada). Due to the considerable differences in the
demographic, social, and educational infrastructure between the UK and US, it is unwise to
assume effective interventions in the US would be equally effective in the UK. This lack of
research across different English-speaking nations speaks to the urgent need for carefully
conducted intervention studies which examine best practice aimed to improve EAL
students’ English language and/or literacy within the UK context.
2. The interventions carried out in the review were targeted specifically at instructional
activities aimed to improve English language (n=12) and/or literacy skills (n=10), continuing
professional development (CPD) activities (n=5) or family literacy practice (n=2). While it is
not surprising that 22 of the 29 studies directly involved targeted pedagogical support for
English language and/or literacy, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that only 5 studies had
a primary focus on CPD and even fewer were directly aimed at enhancing family literacy
iv
practice. The lack of CPD interventions is of particular concern in the UK context given
Andrews’ (2009) review which identified a significant lack of EAL pedagogy and too much
overlap between Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision and the teaching of pupils with
EAL. Therefore, more intervention research needs to be carried out to examine CPD that
has a direct and effective impact on EAL children’s English language and/or literacy
outcomes, both internationally and in the UK.
3. Most of the studies in the in-depth review were aimed at primary school pupils, with fewer
directed towards early secondary and only one specifically targeted for late secondary
pupils. This asymmetry in terms of research on secondary pupils is potentially problematic
since it is at this stage when pupils have high stakes formal examinations and need to have
exceedingly well-developed English language and/or literacy skills (including academic
language) to achieve higher results on national examinations.
4. The interventions that were targeted specifically on language and/or literacy were primarily
focussed on enhancing some aspect of vocabulary. Academic vocabulary and word
analysis strategies figured prominently in a number of interventions – where explicit
teaching of vocabulary was developed through text-based activities and where word
analysis strategies that were aimed to enhance phonological and morphological
awareness 1 improved students’ abilities to understand the relationships between wood
roots and derived forms.
5. Interventions that were developed to support struggling readers primarily aimed to improve
alphabetic knowledge through phonics training and phonological awareness.
6. While none of the interventions received uniformly high ratings on Weight of Evidence
criteria, effect sizes, and/or other methodological criteria, there are a number of
interventions aimed at enhancing vocabulary knowledge in children with EAL that could be
appropriate for implementation in the UK.
Detailed findings by intervention focus
Language oriented interventions
The significant majority (10/12) of the interventions that were aimed primarily at some aspect of
language were focused on developing vocabulary knowledge. Within these interventions, the
target was either on academic vocabulary, phonological and/or morphological awareness, or
1 Phonological awareness refers to an ability to identify the phonological characteristics of a word as distinct from the meaning. Morphological awareness refers to the ability to recognize, understand and use different meaningful word parts (i.e., understanding that adding the suffix [-er] on to the verb ‘teach’ (teacher) changes the word to refer to the agent of the verb).
v
general vocabulary knowledge. The general strategy across these interventions was to directly
teach specific vocabulary through text-based activities (shared book reading, reading tasks, and
the like). These interventions varied in terms of the strength of evidence criteria and effect sizes,
but there are a number that were rated at appropriately high levels as to suggest it would be worth
examining their effectiveness in UK schools. Those language interventions which were not
focused primarily on vocabulary aimed to enhance verbal interaction in classrooms and/or
auditory-perceptual and spoken language skills.
Literacy oriented interventions
The interventions primarily focused on literacy either were comprehension oriented and aimed at
enhancing listening comprehension or comprehension of specific vocabulary, or aimed to develop
lower-level reading skills such as single word reading, decoding, fluency, and phonological
awareness. A number of these literacy-oriented interventions included children who were
identified as struggling readers in that they were at the lower end on pre-test measures of reading
performance. The overall ratings for these interventions were mixed, but many of them had
appropriately high ratings on strength of evidence criteria to suggest there may be some merit in
examining the effectiveness of these interventions in UK classrooms.
Continuing Professional Development interventions
There were five interventions with a primary focus on continuing professional development (CPD)
activities. Two of these aimed to support teachers to improve literacy outcomes through teaching
academic content (e.g., science). One was specifically targeted at helping teachers improve
reading comprehension and reading achievement in urban areas where there was high teacher
turnover (mobility) and one based in the UK was specifically oriented towards helping teachers
promote better verbal interaction in classrooms. These CPD interventions tended to receive lower
ratings than the language and/or literacy oriented interventions in terms of the strength of
evidence. It is somewhat surprising that there were so few CPD interventions – though many of
the language/literacy interventions did include a CPD component even if it was not the primary
focus. The role of the teacher is critical in supporting children with EAL so it would be useful if
more research in the UK could empirically examine different CPD programmes aimed to support
EAL children’s language and/or literacy outcomes.
Family literacy practice interventions
vi
Only two interventions were identified that aimed to enhance literacy practice in the home. One of
these implemented a structured set of parent-child activities to help parents in supporting their
child’s literacy development outside of school. This intervention was effective for the children with
EAL but not the non-EAL children in the study. The other family-oriented intervention aimed to
promote literacy across the summer break between school years to mitigate against observed dips
in children’s reading performance across this time. The intervention was not effective, however.
Recommendations for further research
Only one intervention study in this review was carried out in the UK context. The lack of UK-based
experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies aimed at supporting or enhancing English
language and/or literacy development in children with EAL is alarming given the fact that there are
such high proportions of children with EAL in UK schools. The first recommendation, therefore, is
to develop an intervention research paradigm that explicitly identifies whether and to what extent
particular approaches are effective for children with EAL (and ideally, also for non-EAL children).
Few of the interventions in this review proved to be ineffective, and those interventions aimed at
enhancing vocabulary (academic and/or general) through text-based activities were particularly
successful, both in terms of enhancing target vocabulary but in some cases also through
expressive use in literacy-based activities, with promising effect sizes and strength of evidence
ratings. It would be very useful, therefore, to examine through detailed research whether and to
what extent such vocabulary-based interventions were effective in UK classrooms.
Some children with EAL are struggling readers – that is, they have specific difficulties in single
word reading/decoding activities. For those children, interventions that enhance phonics training,
phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge and reading accuracy/fluency have been proven
effective in the US context. Further research could be carried out in the UK to support struggling
readers with EAL.
The majority of the studies in this review were targeted at primary-level children, and those that
included secondary students tended to recruit early secondary pupils. While Strand, Malmberg
and Hall (2015) identify that the achievement gap between EAL and non-EAL pupils considerably
narrows by later secondary years it would nonetheless be worth examining more specifically what
approaches are particularly effective in helping EAL children to make the transition from primary to
secondary, and whether there were particular pedagogical approaches that are effective in helping
children with EAL in the later secondary years.
vii
viii
Contents Page number Introduction 1
Aims of the review 2
Methods for selecting studies for the in-depth review 2
Search strategy 2
Inclusion/exclusion criteria 3
Characteristics of the studies included in the in-depth review 7
Types of interventions in the in-depth review studies 10
In-Depth Review of Studies 13
Review of interventions with a primary focus on Language 16
Review of interventions with a primary focus on Literacy 23
Review of interventions with a primary focus on CPD 28
Review of interventions with a primary focus on family literacy practice 31
Conclusions and Implications 34
References 39
Appendix A 47
ix
List of figures Page Number
Figure 1 Systematic Review Protocol 5
List of tables
Table 1 Keyword Search terms 3
Table 2 Country in which study was undertaken 7
Table 3 Population focus 8
Table 4 Breakdown by age group 8
Table 5 English language support for EAL learners 9
Table 6 First Language of pupils 10
Table 7 Focus of Intervention 11
Table 8 Primary feature(s) targeted by the ‘Language’ interventions 11
Table 9 Primary Feature(s) targeted by the ‘Literacy’ interventions 12
Table 10 Primary focus of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Interventions 12
Table 11 Focus of Family Literacy Interventions 13
Table 12 Aspects of language and/or literacy targeted by intervention broken 13
down by age group
Table 13 Weight of Evidence assessment for studies with a primary focus on 16
Language
Table 14 Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with 19
EAL in interventions on language
Table 15 Criteria for rating the strength of evidence provided in an individual study 21
Table 16 Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily 21
focused on Language
Table 17 Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on Literacy 23
Table 18 Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in 26
interventions on literacy
Table 19 Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily 27
focused on Literacy
Table 20 Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on 28
Continuing Professional Development
Table 21 Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in 30
interventions on Continuing Professional Development
Table 22 Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily 31
focused on Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Table 23 Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on 32
x
family literacy practice
Table 24 Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in 33
interventions on family literacy practice
Table 25 Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily 33
focused on family literacy practice
1
Introduction
In this report we present the findings of a systematic review implemented to examine intervention
studies that have been carried out on the English language and/or literacy development of children
with EAL – i.e., where children with a home language that is not English are taught through the
medium of English. This issue is of particular importance in considering the development of
children with EAL because whereas non-EAL children develop in homes whose linguistic
environment mirrors that of their educational context this is not the case for children with EAL.
Indeed, a number of children who are EAL can reach school age without having had consistent or
sustained exposure to the majority language (English). Research has identified that many
children with EAL, even with relatively well-developed oral language proficiency, are likely to have
less vocabulary knowledge as non-EAL peers which in turn can have negative consequences on
their English language and literacy development (Murphy, 2014). Literacy development is a
particular concern since all children begin school faced with the task of learning to read, yet need
to complete their primary education with reading skills that enable them to read to learn (Chall,
1983). The literacy skills that are forged in primary school go on to serve as the bedrock upon
which academic learning proceeds at secondary education. Many primary school children with
EAL, however, tend to struggle in listening and reading comprehension in particular (McKendry &
Murphy, 2011; see Murphy, 2014 for a review). Therefore, it is critical that we have a thorough
understanding of the development of language and literacy skills in this population in order to be
able to develop appropriate and effective pedagogical support.
We carried out a systematic review of the research literature that reports on intervention studies
on EAL children’s English language and/or literacy development. A systematic review uses formal
and explicit methods to describe and synthesize evidence from research. The main focus of the
review is to ensure systematicity and hence eliminate, as much as possible, bias in determining
which research is included for review, and to carefully examine the quality of the research that is
included in the in-depth review. We followed the procedures as outlined by the EPPI Centre
(Evidence for Policy and Practice, Information and Co-Ordinating Centre
[http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/]). The EPPI centre has detailed guidance on effective approaches on
how to carry out systematic reviews, and has published a number of systematic reviews on a
range of topics related to education and social policy together with specific resource materials on
best practice in carrying out a review. Consequently, the methods adopted in this review were
taken from their guidelines (e.g., Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2012).
Aims of the Review
The overarching objectives of this review were to:
2
• identify and review controlled intervention studies (i.e., experimental and quasi-experimental
designs) which have focused on and/or included EAL pupils’ English language and/or literacy
development
• identify the quality of these studies with respect to their contribution to improved
understanding of teaching and learning for EAL students
• identify intervention programmes which are most suited to adapting or extending in the UK
context to address attainment gaps in pupils with EAL in England.
• identify and review where further research should be carried out should gaps be identified in
the literature, both within the UK and internationally.
Methods for selecting studies for the in-depth review
Search Strategy
Databases used for electronic searching were: AEI (Australian Education Index), BEI (British
Education Index), LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts), ERIC (Education
Resources Information Center) and Web of Science (including; Science Citation Index, Social
Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index). Different search strategies were
tested to determine which would yield the most appropriate results. The search strategies were
refined in subsequent iterations by reviewing the abstracts of different articles and adding/deleting
different search terms. Selective manual searching was also carried out on 10 different journals
(volumes published between 2000 and May 2014) known to be likely to include relevant papers.
These were: Reading and Writing; TESOL Quarterly, Elementary School Journal, International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Bilingualism Research Journal, Early Education
and Development, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, American Educational
Research Journal, Research in the Teaching of English and School Psychology Review. Table 1
identifies which search terms were used as a result of this search strategy. Note that each row
represents an ‘OR’ function where, for example, the terms ‘intervention’ OR ‘treatment’ OR
‘program(me)’ OR ‘implementation’ were used in conjunction with the other terms. We also used
the ‘NOT’ facility in searching databases where we excluded the terms ‘case studies’ OR
‘disorder’, ‘autism’, ‘ethnography’.
Table 1. Keyword Search terms intervention AND minority
language AND literacy development
treatment heritage language
literacy acquisition
program(me) additional literacy skill
3
language
implementation community language
bilingualism
language minority
literacy
English language learner
reading development
ESL reading skill
diverse language reading achievement
EAL literacy achievement
English as a second language
receptive (language/vocabulary)
English as an Additional language
productive (language/vocabulary)
expressive (language/vocabulary)
writing
phonetic decoding
phonetic awareness
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria
Once the initial search strategy had been carried out, we identified from abstracts (and for some
papers from reading the full articles) the studies to be included in the keyword map, according to
the following criteria:
1. Research that has been published in English since 2000
2. Research that examines some aspect of EAL provision
3. Interventions focused on influencing EAL pupils’ English language and/or literacy outcomes
targeting individuals, small-groups, classroom-based practice, school-wide practice, or
parents/families
4. Interventions which include an appropriate control or comparison group.
5. Research which describes peer-reviewed empirical reports in peer-reviewed journal articles
6. Interventions on primary and secondary level pupils
7. Interventions on typically developing children
Studies were excluded if they:
1. did not adhere to either an experimental or quasi-experimental design
2. did not include a control or comparison group
3. did not include outcome measures which addressed EAL children’s English language or literacy
4. focussed on children with language and/or learning disabilities
5. published before 2000
4
6. focused on students in post-secondary education or pre-school (under 4 years)
We only included studies from the year 2000 because of the fact that there has been a significant
increase in the numbers of children with EAL in UK primary and secondary schools since this time.
In the year 2000, 8.7% of the primary school population was EAL compared to 18.1% in 2013. For
the secondary school population, 8% were EAL in 2000 compared to 13.6% in 2013 (NALDIC).
We also felt that 14 years’ worth of research would uncover the main themes in terms of which
interventions have been developed and implemented in English-speaking countries.
Applying the criteria above yielded 44 studies for inclusion in the systematic keyword map. For
the in-depth review we applied an additional criterion:
1. Interventions on children participating in standard educational provision (i.e., not bilingual
programmes where some educational provision is delivered through the medium of the
child’s L1 and English)
We applied this additional criterion in order to ensure maximum generalizability to the minority
language learner context in the UK (and indeed elsewhere internationally) where there is minimal
access to bilingual education. The application of this additional criterion yielded a total of 29
studies for the in-depth review. Figure 1 depicts the protocol adopted to identify the articles for the
in-depth review.
5
Papers
excluded
N=654
Criterion 1
N=0
Criterion 2
N=53
Criterion 3
N=29
Criterion 4
N=443
Criterion 5
N=0
Papers not
obtained
N=4
Papers
excluded
N=258
Criterion 1
N=0
Criterion 2
N=59
Criterion 3
N=45
Criterion 4
N=22
Criterion 5
N=117
Criterion 6
N=94
Criterion 7
N=35
Criterion 6
N=9
Criterion 7
N=6
In-depth
criterion
N=15
Figure 1. Systemic Review Protocol
One stage screening
Papers identified in ways
that allow immediate
screening (handsearching)
Two stage screening
Papers identified where there is
not immediate screening
(electronic searching)
N=975
Titles and abstracts screened
N=975
Potential includes
N=321
Duplicates
N=15
Full-text articles assessed
for eligibility
N=302
Systematic map studies
included
N=44
In-depth review studies
included
N=29
6
As illustrated in Figure 1, many of the original 975 studies identified from our search were
excluded once the abstracts (and/or titles) were cross-referenced against our inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Specifically, the significant majority (n=443) were eliminated due to the lack of
appropriate control or comparison group. 94 studies were excluded because they were not
targeted at primary or secondary school students. These studies predominantly had pre-school
students as their focus, and while English language and pre-literacy development of children with
EAL in preschool is an important and interesting topic, preschool provision is not the focus of this
review. 53 studies were not exclusively targeted on an aspect of EAL provision and 35 studies
were focussed exclusively on children who were not typically developing – i.e., had some form of
language or learning impairment. Again, the specific challenges faced by children with EAL who
have learning difficulties is exceedingly important but not the focus of this review2. Finally, 29
studies were excluded because the outcome measures did not include English language and/or
literacy assessments.
Applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria in this way left 302 articles which, based on their
abstracts, looked like they may be appropriate for the review. We then accessed the full text of
each article to carry out a more detailed application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This
process led us to exclude a further 258 papers. The majority of these (n=117) were excluded
because they were not in peer-reviewed journal articles or were not peer-reviewed reports. For
example, a number of these were either Master’s or DPhil theses and while theses do indeed
undergo a process of review, it is not the same kind of rigorous review procedure as scholarly,
blind, peer-reviewed articles. Some were excluded because they either did not focus on provision
for EAL, English language and/or literacy outcomes and/or did not have a control group. A further
9 were excluded because they were targeted on preschool children and finally, 6 were excluded
due to their focus on atypical development. Applying this screening process yielded a final 44
studies in the systematic keyword map (i.e., the process of applying the keywords presented in
Table 1 to the databases and hand searching). Appendix A presents the details of each of these
44 studies.
Having identified these 44 studies, we then applied the additional criterion that only those studies
which were carried out in traditional educational programmes – i.e., not bilingual education
programmes - would be included in the in-depth review. Many countries around the world, and the
US in particular where much of this research has been conducted, offer education programmes
2 For a useful discussion addressing the relationship between EAL and Special Educational Needs see: http://www.naldic.org.uk/eal-teaching-and-learning/eal-resources/eal-sen - and the NALDIC Quarterly referenced on this site. For a helpful review of research examining the relationship between dual language development and linguistic disorders see: Paradis, Genesee and Crago (2011).
7
specifically developed to assist children with EAL in their English language and literacy
development and where children with EAL spend a portion of the day educated through the
medium of their L1 (see Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders & Christian, 2006; Murphy, 2014).
The significant majority of children with EAL in the UK do not participate in such bilingual
education programmes and in order to make this review as applicable as possible to the UK
context only studies that were carried out in a setting that was more closely matched with the UK
were included. Applying this additional criteria led to 15 studies being excluded resulting in a total
of 29 studies for the in-depth review.
Characteristics of the studies included in the in-depth review This section describes the basic characteristics of the 29 in-depth review studies. One of the most
striking of which is that 27 of the 29 studies were carried out within the US as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2: Country in which study was undertaken (N=29) Country Number USA 27 Canada 1 UK 1
The US has a reasonably high proportion of its population who speak a language other than
English where in the 2007 Census the overall figure was 19.7%, with some states (California, New
Mexico, Texas) having more than 30% of the overall population speaking a language other than
English. Consequently, educators have developed different forms of bilingual education to help
support the English language (and sometimes the home language) development of minority
language learners (i.e., children with EAL) (García & Kleifgen, 2010; García, 2009). The
development of these programmes has contributed to an increase in research examining the
needs of children with EAL and their linguistic and academic achievements (Genesee et al, 2006).
Nonetheless, there is a stark contrast between the number of studies carried out in the US and
other English-speaking nations which underscores the urgent need for more research on these
issues in other geopolitical contexts, and the UK in particular.
Table 3 illustrates that of the 29 studies in the in-depth review, the majority of these were focused
exclusively on children with EAL while other studies examined non-EAL and EAL children in the
same study. Furthermore, some of the interventions in the in-depth review were targeted on
teachers (i.e., through continuing professional development activities) and family literacy practices.
8
Table 3: Population focus (N=29, not mutually exclusive) Primary Focus of intervention Number Non-EAL children 16 English as Additional Language (EAL) learners
29
Teachers 5 Families 2
The studies in the in-depth review reflect research on different age groups (and consequently
levels of education). Table 4 illustrates that the majority of studies (n=14) were carried out on
children in the early school years – defined as aged 4 to 6 years old which in the UK context would
correspond to Early Years/Reception classes. Some studies, however, focused on more than one
age band.
Table 4: Breakdown by age group (N=29, not mutually exclusive) Age band Number Articles Early school years (age 4-6)
14 1.Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013 2. Filippini, et al, 2012 3.Harper, et al, 2011 4. Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 5. Lugo-Neris, et al, 2010 6. Spycher, 2009 7. Solari, & Gerber, 2008 8. Giambo & McKinney, 2004 9. Kotler et al, 2001 10. Crevecoeur, et al, 2013 11. Vadasy, & Sanders, 2013 12. Ehri, et al, 2007 13. Kamps, et al, 2007 14. Tong, et al, 2010
Mid to late primary (aged 7-11)
8 1. Lara-Alecio, et al, 2012 2. Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 3. Matsumura, et al, 2010 4. Kim & Guryan, 2010 5. Kotler et al, 2001 6. Troia, 2004 7. Proctor, et al, 2011 8. Almaguer, 2005 9. Graves, et al, 2011 (6
th grade)
Early secondary (aged 12-14)
8 1. Short, et al, 2012 2. Townsend, & Collins, 2009 3. Troia, 2004 4. Lesaux, et al, 2010 5. Snow, et al, 2009 6. Kieffer, & Lesaux, 2012 7. Lawrence, et al, 2012
Mid to late secondary (aged 15-18)
1 1. Kim, et al, 2011
As indicated above, our additional in-depth review inclusion criteria excluded studies carried out
within the context of bilingual education programmes. However, a few of the studies (see Table 5)
9
were carried out within the context of specialist support for English language learners, which
sometimes was examined in the context of structured English immersion or sheltered English
instruction (SEI) (n = 6). SEI is a pedagogical approach aimed to support rapid English language
development in children with EAL. In many examples of Structured English Immersion the
majority of the school day is spent in English language activities and children are exited from the
programme when they have reached a specific level of fluency in English. In Sheltered English
Instruction teachers use clear, direct and simple English along with a range of scaffolding
strategies to help make content accessible to students with limited English proficiency. While SEI
is not a form of education available in the UK, it nonetheless partially reflects what does
sometimes happen in the UK – i.e., all children with EAL are ‘mainstreamed’ in to classes
delivered through the medium of English (i.e., no L1 support), but where children who have
specific difficulties with English can receive remedial English Language Arts support outside of the
normal classroom sessions. We therefore felt that it would be of interest to include studies which
were carried out within this context for the in-depth review.
Table 5: English language support for EAL learners (N=29) Support Number Article None – mainstream classes only
23 1. Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013 2. Lara-Alecio, et al, 2012 3. Short et al, 2012 4. Filippini, et al, 2012 5. Harper, et al, 2011 6. Kim, et al , 2011 7. Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 8. Matsumura, et al, 2010 9. Lugo-Neris, et al, 2010 10. Kim & Guryan, 2010 11. Townsend, & Collins, 2009 12. Spycher, 2009 13. Solari, & Gerber, 2008 14. Giambo & McKinney, 2004 15. Kotler et al, 2001 16. Troia, 2004 17. Vadasy, & Sanders, 2013 18. Graves, et al, 2011 19. Lesaux, et al, 2010 20. Ehri, et al, 2007 21. Kamps, et al, 2007 22. Almaguer, 2005 23. Kieffer, & Lesaux, 2012
Special or remedial education (SEI) – non mainstream classes
6 1. Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 2. Crevecoeur, et al, 2013 3. Proctor, et al, 2011 4. Snow, et al, 2009 5. Lawrence, et al, 2012 6. Tong, et al, 2010
Given that the significant majority of studies in the in-depth review were carried out in the context
of the US, it is not surprising to see from Table 6 that the L1 of most of the children who
10
participated in the studies came from Spanish-speaking homes. Studies were counted as having
mixed L1s if more than one L1 was represented in the sample – a situation most common in UK
classrooms. For four studies (Matsumura et al. 2010; Graves et al. 2011; Snow et al. 2009;
Lawrence et al. 2012) data on the L1s of the EAL pupils were not specified. Where possible, we
recorded the specific L1, meaning that there is some overlap between those studies recorded as
mixed and those studies recorded for specific L1s.
Table 6. First Language of pupils (N=29, not mutually exclusive) Language Studies including children who
speak this language Spanish 23 English 16 Mixed L1s in the same study 12 Vietnamese 6 Somali 5 Tagalog 4 Arabic 3 Pilipino 3 Hmong 2 Chinese 2 Punjabi 2 Polish 1 Guajarati 1 Japanese 1 Turkish 1 Sylheti 1 Amharic 1 Russian 1 Samoan 1 Cambodian 1 Oromo 1 Tigrigna 1 Lao 1 Albanian 1 Sudanese 1
Types of interventions in the in-depth review studies The in-depth review studies represent a range of different approaches with respect to enhancing
English language or literacy development in children with EAL. Table 7 illustrates that the majority
of the interventions were primarily focussed on enhancing some aspect of the children’s English
language skill and where nearly as many (n=10) targeted some aspect of comprehension and/or
literacy development. However, many of these studies focussed on both, where word-level skills
were developed through text-based activities. Indeed, the division between ‘language’ and
11
‘literacy’ interventions is somewhat arbitrary in the sense that many interventions included a strong
focus on vocabulary due to the importance of developing vocabulary knowledge in developing
good reading comprehension skills. Therefore, there are some interventions identified in Table 7
as being focussed on literacy because they included a literacy component, even if the study also
had a strong vocabulary element. This distinction between ‘language’ and ‘literacy’ should not be
considered as rigid, but rather perhaps more as ends on a continuum.
Table 7: Focus of Intervention (N=29) Primary Focus of Intervention Number Language Snow et al., 2009
Lawrence et al., 2012 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012 Lesaux et al., 2010 Troia, 2004 Filippini et al, 2012 Townsend & Collins, 2009 Spycher, 2009 Giambo & McKinney, 2004 Crevecoer et al., 2013 Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013
Literacy Ehri et al., 2007 Proctor et al., 2011 Almaguer, 2005 Solari & Gerber, 2008 Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 Tong et al., 2010 Kamps et al., 2007 Lugo-Neris et al., 2010 Graves et al., 2011
Continuing Professional Development Lara-Alecio et al., 2012 Short et al., 2012 Kim et al, 2011 Kotler et al, 2001 Matsumura et al, 2010
Family literacy practice Harper et al, 2011 Kim & Guryan, 2010
A range of different language-oriented features were highlighted in the predominantly language
interventions, but as illustrated in Table 8, most focused on some aspect of vocabulary with two
exceptions: the one study on verbal interaction (Greenfader & Brouillette, 2011) and the research
that evaluated an intervention primarily targeted on auditory-perceptual and spoken skills (Troia,
2004). The majority of the remaining interventions mainly targeted some aspect of vocabulary and
many of these focussed on academic vocabulary in particular (n=6).
Table 8: Primary feature(s) targeted by the ‘Language’ interventions (N=12) Aspect of language Number Academic Vocabulary 6
12
Verbal Interaction 1 Vocabulary – Phonological awareness
2
Morphological awareness 2 General vocabulary 2 Auditory-perceptual and spoken language skills
1
The majority of those interventions with a primary focus on literacy development targeted reading
fluency/accuracy and/or reading comprehension (see Table 9). Indeed, there was only one
intervention that was aimed specifically to improve children’s writing skills, and this was a
continuing professional development (CPD) intervention (Kim et al., 2011). However, as with most
of the interventions in the review, more than one aspect of literacy and/or language was included.
Table 9: Primary Feature(s) targeted by the ‘Literacy’ interventions (N=10) Primary Aspect of literacy Number Shared Reading 2 Reading with Software 1 Reading Rescue (Recovery) 1 Reading comprehension 6 Phonics instruction through texts 2 Reading fluency 5 Reading – fluency (phonetic decoding, phonological awareness)
11
There were only 5 interventions that were chiefly focussed on Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) though many of the 29 studies in the in-depth review included some element
of CPD even if it was not the primary focus. Of those where the concentration was on CPD, two
aimed at supporting teachers to integrate academic content with literacy development, and the
remaining 3 aimed to improve writing, reading comprehension and verbal interaction (see Table
10).
Table 10. Primary focus of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Interventions (N=5) Primary Aspect of CPD Article Integrating literacy skills with content Lara-Alecio et al (2010)
Short et al (2012)
Use of a cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing instruction
Kim et al (2011)
Content-Focused Coaching for reading comprehension and reading achievement in high teacher mobility schools
Matsumura et al (2010)
‘Talking Partners’ – CPD to promote better interaction in classrooms
Kotler et al (2001
13
The two family oriented interventions focussed on either enhancing family literacy practice or tried
to promote reading during the summer holiday to mitigate against a dip in reading skill during this
time (see Table 11).
Table 11. Focus of Family Literacy Interventions (N=2) Primary focus of Intervention Article Parent-child activities to help parents enhance child’s literacy skills
Harper et al (2011)
Summer literacy workshops to help prevent summer reading loss
Kim & Guryan (2010)
In-Depth Review of Studies Having identified the studies for the in-depth review, we then assessed the quality of the evidence
of these interventions to help identify whether there may be particular insights or applications from
this research to the UK context. We first organised the interventions according to the particular
linguistic/literacy feature(s) that were targeted by the intervention to determine whether there were
any specific discernable patterns related to which aspects of English language/literacy were
investigated in different age groups. Table 12 presents the results of this analysis.
Table 12. Aspects of language and/or literacy targeted by intervention broken down by age group Focus of intervention
Early Primary
Mid-Late Primary
Early Secondary
Mid-Late Secondary
Word-level skills (e.g. phonological decoding/awareness, morphological awareness)
Filippini et al., 2012 Harper et al., 2011 Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 Solari & Gerber, 2008 Giambo & McKinney, 2004 Troia, 2004 Ehri et al., 2007 Kamps et al., 2007 Tong et al., 2010
Graves et al., 2011 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Troia, 2004 Lesaux et al. 2010 Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012
General vocabulary Filippini et al., 2012 Lugo-Neris et al., 2010 Spycher, 2009
Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Kim & Guryan, 2010 Kotler et al,
Snow et al., 2009 Lawrence et al., 2012
14
Giambo & McKinney, 2004 Kotler et al, 2001 Crevecoeur et al. 2013 Ehri et al., 2007 Harper et al., 2011 Solari & Gerber, 2008 Crevecoeur et al., 2014
Lesaux et al. 2010 Proctor et al., 2011
Reading fluency Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 Ehri et al., 2007 Kamps et al., 2007 Tong et al., 2010
Graves et al., 2011 Lara-Alecio et al., 2012 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Almaguer, 2005
Reading comprehension
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 Solari, and Gerber, 2008 Ehri et al., 2007 Kamps et al., 2007 Tong et al., 2010
Graves et al., 2011 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Matsumura et al., 2010 Kim & Guryan, 2010 Lesaux et al. 2010 Almaguer, 2005 Proctor et al., 2011
Kim et al., 2011
Kim et al., 2011
Academic vocabulary Spycher, 2009 Tong et al., 2010
Short et al., 2012 Snow et al., 2009 Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Lesaux et al., 2010
Lawrence et al., 2010 Townsend & Collins, 2009 Short et al., 2012 Lara-Alecio et al., 2012
Writing Short et al., 2012 Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Lesaux et al., 2010
Kim et al., 2011 Short et al., 2012 Lara-Alecio et al., 2012
Kim et al., 2011
Verbal interaction Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013 Spycher, 2009 Giambo & McKinney, 2004 Kotler et al, 2001 Troia, 2004 Tong et al., 2010 Kotler, et al., 2001
Short et al., 2012 Kotler et al, 2001 Troia, 2004
Listening comprehension
Solari & Gerber, 2008
Mancilla-Martinez, 2010
15
Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013 Troia, 2004 Kotler et al., 2001 Crevecoeur et al., 2014
Troia, 2004 Lesaux et al., 2010
Continuing Professional Development
Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013 Tong et al., 2010 Vadasy & Sanders, 2010 Kotler et al., 2001
Short et al., 2012 Matsumura et al., 2010 Snow et al., 2009 Kim & Guryan, 2010
Kim et al., 2011 Snow et al., 2009 Short et al., 2012 Lara-Alecio et al., 2012
Kim et al., 2011
Table 12 reflects the fact that the majority of the studies focused on primary school students, and
their early word-level skills, general vocabulary, and oral language skills including listening
comprehension and verbal interaction. Middle primary and early secondary students have been
mostly investigated in relation to improving vocabulary and reading comprehension. What is
perhaps most striking from Table 12 is the fact that 27 (out of 29) studies examined some aspect
of vocabulary, with 10 of these specifically examining academic vocabulary. Reading fluency and
reading comprehension are also key areas targeted by these studies. This focus on word-level
skills, vocabulary, and reading comprehension reflects current thinking about the importance of
oral language (vocabulary) skills in supporting reading comprehension (Genesee et al., 2006;
Murphy, 2014).
We adopted a two tier process in examining the quality of the evidence of these studies. In the
first phase of our evaluation we assembled a reviewing team consisting of applied linguistics
scholars at the University of Oxford. Each paper was read independently by two members of the
review team who rated each study according to Weight of Evidence (WoE) criteria. WoE criteria
enable reviewers to examine quality and relevance of individual research papers. Despite meeting
our specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, individual studies may not meet quality and relevance
standards (Gough, 2007). However, as a construct, the notion of ‘quality’ is complex and not
always objectively straightforward to identify. Quality can be measured in terms of generic or
intrinsic judgements or against specific criteria. Importantly, a piece of research might meet
expected standards in terms of generic assessments but not be particularly relevant or useful for
the specific purposes of a review. Consequently, Gough (2007) proposes a Weight of Evidence
framework which includes a generic judgement (WoE A), a review-specific judgement relating to
the research design (WoE B), a review-specific judgement about the focus of the evidence (WoE
C) and finally an overall judgement (WoE D). These four WoE criteria are thus:
16
Weight of Evidence A: Taking account of all quality assessment issues, can the study findings be
trusted in addressing the study aim(s)? [High, Medium, Low]
Weight of Evidence B: What is the appropriateness of the research design and analysis for
addressing the aims of the specific review? [High, Medium, Low]
Weight of Evidence C: What is the relevance of particular focus of the study for addressing the
aims of the review? [High, Medium, Low]
Weight of Evidence D: Taking into account the quality of execution, appropriateness of the design
and relevance of focus, what is the overall weight of evidence this study provides to answer the
question of this review? [High, Medium, Low]
Each reviewer applied this WoE framework to their assessment of each study. In doing so, we
also asked them to consider specific features of research studies to help them make their
assessment. These features relate to the rationale for carrying out the study, level of detail
provided, the clarity of the research questions, the specific methodology, how participants were
assigned to their respective groups, clarity of the variables, the sampling frame, sample size,
appropriateness of the procedure with relevant safeguards, assessment of the analytical
framework and conclusions/implications. This procedure meant that for each study there were two
ratings and where there was a discrepancy of only one rank between the two independent (blind)
reviewers we report the lowest rating in order to be most conservative. For example, if reviewer A
ranked a paper as ‘low’ and reviewer B ranked the same paper as ‘medium’ we reported the ‘low’
ranking to adopt a more stringent criterion. If the two reviewers’ ratings were discrepant by more
than one rank, (i.e., one reviewer rated the paper as ‘low’ and the other rated the paper as ‘high’)
we opted for the middle ranking ‘medium’ to reflect both reviewers’ assessments. Clearly this
procedure has some flaws in that these are subjective assessments. However, as indicated
above, each reviewer was him/herself an experienced researcher in the area of applied linguistics,
three of whom had themselves carried out systematic reviews of this nature. Furthermore, we
adopted a second tier of review (described below) to supplement the review protocol.
Review of interventions with a primary focus on Language Table 13 presents the reviewers’ ratings for those studies whose primary focus was on some
aspect of students’ English language.
Table 13. Weight of Evidence assessment for studies with a primary focus on Language. Study WoE A
Trustwothiness of evidence
WoE B Appropriateness of design for this
WoE C Relevance of Focus for this
WoE D Overall strength of evidence for
17
review review this review Snow et al., 2009
Low Medium High Medium
Lawrence et al., 2012
High High High High
Mancilla-Martinez, 2010
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012
Medium Medium High Medium
Lesaux et al., 2010
High High Medium High
Filippini et al., 2012
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Townsend & Collins, 2009
Medium Medium High Medium
Spycher, 2009 Medium Medium High Medium Giambo & McKinney, 2004
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Crevecoeur et al., 2014
Medium Medium High Medium
Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013
Low Medium Medium Low
Troia, 2004 Medium Medium High High
Lawrence et al (2012) is a follow up study of the Snow et al (2009) study, both of which focused on
a specific intervention called ‘Word Generation’. Indeed, a third paper in this category, Mancilla-
Martinez (2010), also examined the ‘Word Generation’ intervention. The Word Generation
intervention incorporates research-based principles of vocabulary learning (Snow et al., 2009)
where academic vocabulary is explicitly taught (5 words each session) and then included in
different activities throughout a week across different curricular topics (e.g., maths, social science
and science). Therefore, it incorporates many opportunities to use the target words in different
ways (texts, debates, discussion, writing, etc). In this way, the intervention helps promote oral
vocabulary as well as targeting the development of key specific academic vocabulary. In the
original Snow et al (2009) report, students in the Word Generation intervention learned more
target academic vocabulary words than students in control schools and where children with EAL
were identified to benefit more from participating in the intervention than non-EAL children. In the
follow up Lawrence et al (2012) study, the long and short-term effects of participating in the Word
Generation programme were compared for 3 groups of students i) proficient English speakers
from non-EAL homes, ii) proficient English speakers from EAL homes and iii) limited English
proficient students. The specific focus was to determine if participation in Word Generation
benefited all students irrespective of home language status and proficiency, and whether all
students maintained knowledge of target words relative to comparison groups. English proficient
students from EAL homes made strong gains and maintained them compared to control students
even a year later. English proficient students from non-EAL homes also made gains relative to the
comparison group and maintained these gains across the course of the study. Limited English
proficient students, however, did not show short-term or long-term benefits from the Word
18
Generation Program. The third paper in this category that reported on the Word Generation
intervention was Mancilla-Martinez (2010) who investigated whether the Word Generation
programme would improve fifth grade (age 10-11) EAL students’ literacy outcomes. Mancilla-
Martinez (2010) reported that the Word Generation programme helped students gain knowledge of
more (target) vocabulary than children in the control group and they also had heightened word
awareness. This finding replicates the findings of the Snow et al (2009) and Lawrence et al
(2012) studies. Perhaps most importantly, students in the Word Generation programme in
Mancilla-Martinez’ (2010) study also used more of the target words in their writing suggesting
possible transfer of this (academic) vocabulary intervention on to literacy skills. Each of the three
papers in this category depicted in Table 13 report facilitative effects of participating in the Word
Generation programme. However, of these three, only the Lawrence et al (2012) received an
overall rating of ‘high’ perhaps due in part to methodological variability across the three studies,
and/or reviewer subjectivity.
Four other papers rated in Table 13 also reported on interventions aimed at enhancing academic
vocabulary. Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) and Lesaux et al (2010) report on an intervention called
‘Academic Language Instruction for All Students’ (ALIAS) which focused on building word-level
skills of key target academic vocabulary, including relational and syntactic aspects of
morphological awareness (e.g., understanding that ‘complex’ is the root of the word ‘complexity’).
Both of these studies report facilitative effects on 6th graders’ word knowledge having participated
in the ALIAS intervention. Townsend and Collins (2009) and Spycher (2009) each respectively
report on similar interventions in that they also include direct, explicit vocabulary instruction of
target academic vocabulary. Townsend and Collins’ (2009) intervention was carried out on early
secondary (12 year old) children with EAL through book reading activities, and Spycher’s (2009)
aimed at improving kindergarten children’s academic language through comparing implicit vs.
intentional approaches to vocabulary learning through science instruction.
Seven out of the twelve studies identified in Table 13 report on interventions targeting academic
vocabulary. All of these interventions report facilitative effects for those children who participated
in the interventions on developing their academic vocabulary, general vocabulary, and word
awareness skills. However, of these, only Lawrence et al (2012) and Lesaux et al (2010) were
ranked as ‘high’ overall.
The remaining interventions identified in Table 13 focused on direct, explicit instruction of
vocabulary through story reading (Crevecoeur et al., 20140), or direct instruction of vocabulary
targeting word-level skills such as phonological and morphological awareness (Filippini et al 2012;
19
Giambo & McKinney, 2004). Troia (2004) is the only example of a software-based intervention
aimed to develop aspects of EAL children’s oral interaction and received a high rating on the WoE
criteria due to its relevance and methodological rigour. Unfortunately, it is one of the few studies
in this in-depth review which reports no facilitative effects of the intervention. Finally, Greenfader
and Brouillette (2013) report on an intervention where drama activities were introduced aimed at
developing EAL children’s oral interaction. Unfortunately this study suffered from a number of
methodological flaws, where many key features of the design and analyses were not explained in
sufficient detail leading to its comparatively low WoE ratings.
In addition to the WoE criteria we examined each study for whether an effect size was reported,
for which outcome measures, and the strength of the effect. In some cases, a range of effect
sizes is provided when the authors reported effect size by schools within treatment clusters. The
strength of an effect is somewhat determined by which specific statistic the researchers calculated
to determine the effect size (e.g., Cohen’s d vs. η2 (eta squared), etc.). Many studies tend to
report Cohen’s d as an effect size, therefore, unless otherwise specified, Table 14 reports Cohen’s
d. An indication of the general strength of the effect is also reported. It is important to note that
many studies report a wide range of effect sizes for both non-significant and significant findings,
across a range of measures, groups, and conditions. For the sake of brevity, in Table 14 we
report either the range of effect sizes across different measures, groups, and conditions OR we
present a sample of effect sizes for the main comparison of the intervention. Some of the
interventions carried out complex hierarchical multilevel modeling which is an appropriate
analytical strategy for many designs within educational development paradigms such as the ones
under discussion in this report and consequently did not report an effect size. Effect size reporting
in multilevel modeling is more complex than calculating Cohen’s d or reporting (partial) η2 and
there is much less consensus on how effect sizes should reported in these statistical approaches
(Peugh, 2010). While there are ways to report effect sizes within the multilevel modeling paradigm
these were not always reported.
Table 14. Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in interventions on language Study Effect Size
Reported? Outcome Measure and Effect Size
Strength of Evidence
Snow et al., 2009 Yes Across academic vocabulary the range = 0.33-0.65
Medium-High
Lawrence et al., 2012 No Used multi-level growth modeling Mancilla-Martinez, 2010 Yes Word Generation multiple choice
= 1.24 Word Generation real words self-check = 0.58
High Medium
20
Word Generation nonsense words self-check = 0.80
High
Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012 Yes
Real Word Decomposition = 0.16 NonWord Derivation = 0.25
Low Medium
Lesaux et al., 2010 Yes (EAL-non-EAL difference)
Target Word Mastery = 0.51 Morphological Decomposition = 0.41 Target Word Association = 0.60 Word Meanings in Context = 0.39 Gates-MacGinitie = 0.42 SAT-10 Reading Vocabulary = 0.52
Medium Medium Medium-High Low Medium Medium
Filippini et al., 2012 Yes Vocabulary (MA Group) = 0.56 Vocabulary (SR Group) = 0.28 Vocabulary (PA Group) = 0.04 Phonological Decoding (MA Group) = 0.33 Phon Decoding (SR Group) = 0.49 Phon. Decoding (PA Group) = .17
Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low
Townsend & Collins, 2009 Yes(partial η2
) Academic Vocabulary = 0.15-0.36 Medium-High
Spycher, 2009 Yes Science vocabulary = 0.98 High Giambo & McKinney, 2004 Yes Receptive vocabulary (PA Group)
= 0.74 Receptive vocabulary (story reading group) = 0.59 Oral Proficiency (PA Group) = 0.58
High
Crevecoeur et al., 2014 Yes Target word knowledge = 1.08 PPVT (receptive vocab) = 0.29 Listening Comprehension = -0.05
High Low Low
Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013
Yes (R2) Listening = 0.43 Speaking = 0.47
Medium Medium
Troia, 2004 Yes Letter-Word Identification = 0.11 Word Attack = 0.01
Low Low
Table 14 illustrates that there was a range of magnitudes with respect to effect sizes of statistically
significant findings from studies focused on language. However, the only study which reported
uniformly low effect sizes was Troia (2004) who also reported very few significant effects for the
treatment. Furthermore, Crevecoeur et al (2014) reported high effect sizes for their outcome
measure on target word knowledge despite lower effect sizes on other measures. Across the
studies in the category, the effect size most commonly reported ranges from medium to medium-
high. These findings are encouraging with respect to the extent to which these interventions might
be applicable to other contexts such as the UK.
As a result of the problem of inherent subjectivity of the reviewers’ ratings, as well as the need to
specifically evaluate the methodologies of the studies to assess their impact, we carried out a
second phase of reviewing where we applied the criteria identified in Table 15 to each study. This
21
additional, second tier of review was carried out in an effort to be as rigorous as possible with
respect to assessing the overall quality of the studies. The criteria in Table 15 do overlap
somewhat with the WoE criteria, however, they also provide a more explicit rating system for the
key methodological features under consideration in this review.
Table 15. Criteria for rating the strength of evidence provided in an individual study (does not take into account the size of the effect) Strength of evidence
Explanation 1.Research design
2. Number of cases
3. Attrition 4. Outcome measure
5. Fidelity & validity
High Findings are highly secure and makes a substantial contribution to the existing evidence
Fair and clear experimental design (RCT)
A good number of cases or clusters, a ‘well-powered study’ (e.g. 100 cases or 50 clusters or more per arm)
Balanced groups with minimal attrition
Robust, valid outcome measure, standardised or widely acceptable, not intervention-specific, delivered blind
Clearly defined intervention, no evidence of threats to validity, or experimenter effect (independent evaluation)
Medium Findings are moderately secure and makes a contribution to the existing evidence
Well-matched comparison group (quasi-experiment)
A medium number of cases (e.g. 50 cases or 20 clusters per arm)
Some imbalance or moderate attrition
Robust, valid outcome measure
Reasonably clear intervention, some threats to validity or concerns about experimenter effect.
Low Findings are insecure and add little to the existing evidence
Comparison group with poor or no matching (eg. Volunteer v other)
A small study or ‘low-powered study’ (e.g. less than 40 cases or 10 clusters per arm)
Substantial imbalance or high attrition
Concerns about validity, reliability and that the outcome measure is inherent to the treatment
Poorly specified intervention, serious threats to validity and strong indication of experimenter effect (lack of independence)
These criteria were applied to the twelve studies with a focus on language to yield the following
ratings presented in Table 16.
Table 16. Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily focussed on Language Papers Research
Design Number of Cases
Attrition Outcome Measure
Fidelity & Validity
Snow et al., 2009
Medium High Low Medium-Low Medium
Lawrence et al., 2012
Medium High Low Medium-Low Medium
Mancilla-Martinez, 2010
Medium Low Low Medium-Low Medium
Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012
Medium-Low High Low High Medium-High
Lesaux et al., 2010
Medium-Low High Medium-Low Medium-high Medium-High
Filippini et al., Medium Low Medium Medium-high Medium-High
22
2012
Townsend & Collins, 2009
Medium-Low Low Medium-Low High Medium
Spycher, 2009 Medium Low Low Low Medium Giambo & McKinney, 2004
Medium Low Low High Medium
Crevecoeur et al., 2014
Medium-Low Low Low Low Medium-High
Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013
Low Medium-High Low Medium-High Low
Troia, 2004 Medium Medium Low High Medium-High
Similar to the results of the application of the WoE criteria in Table 13, Table 16 presents a rather
mixed picture with respect to the strength of the evidence from the intervention studies with a
primary focus on features of English language. It is worth noting, however, that some of the
differences between Table 13 and 16 are reflected in the criteria used to make the ratings. The
criteria in Table 15 preclude rating a study as ‘high’ for research design unless it is a pure
randomized control trial (RCT) which is relatively rare in educational studies of the type under
review here. A pure RCT is one where participants are randomly assigned to groups in the design
and where different groups are carefully matched on key variables. Ideally, participants would
also be randomly sampled from the population. None of the interventions could be conceived of
as a pure RCT either due to lack of (or weak) matching between comparison groups, or due to a
lack of random allocation to treatment conditions or both. Consequently, none of them achieved a
‘high’ rating in the research design category. However, many studies did randomly assign to
groups and made significant efforts to match the participants on relevant variables hence the
almost uniform ‘medium’ rating on this category. Similarly, in order to receive a rating of ‘high’ on
the ‘Fidelity and Validity’ criterion, the intervention needed to be evaluated (at post test) by an
independent group of researchers. This was not the case for any of the studies in this review,
despite the fact that many of them included a number of appropriate and relevant methodological
controls to ensure fidelity to treatment and to eliminate researcher bias as much as possible. This
criterion of having a different (i.e., independent) set of evaluators for the intervention to assess
validity was not included in the WoE assessment rankings, hence the discrepancy across these
ratings.
Interestingly, very few of the studies had well-balanced groups and reported careful and detailed
information about participant attrition, leading to an almost uniform ‘low’ rating on this category.
There is quite a lot of variability in terms of the numbers of participants with some studies having a
robust number suggesting a well-powered study (Snow et al., 2009; Lawrence et al., 2012; Kieffer
& Lesaux, 2012; Lesaux et al., 2010; Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013) whereas others had a very
low number of participants in each group. Similarly, most studies used some combination of
23
researcher-designed or adapted outcome measures which resulted in a ‘low’ rating in addition to
well-validated standardised assessments, resulting in a higher rating. On a positive note, there
was only one study in this category that could be considered a poorly specified intervention with
serious threats to the internal validity (Greenfader & Brouilette, 2013) and this low rating could be
due in large part to the way in which the intervention is described in this paper. The focus in this
study is on the use of dramatization in the classroom with very little detail on the methodological
features of the study itself, hence it was not possible to assign higher ratings to this study.
Furthermore, a high rating does not mean that the intervention is successful. Troia (2004), for
example, is an example of a reasonably carefully designed study aimed at evaluating a specific
software programme that has been widely acclaimed to be successful in improving language
outcomes in EAL and non-EAL children. Troia’s intervention, however, suggests otherwise in that
there were very few significant differences between the treatment and control participants in his
study.
This section has reviewed the twelve papers that had a primary focus on improving some aspect
of EAL children’s English language. Most of these focused on some aspect of vocabulary, mostly
academic vocabulary and word-level skills/knowledge such as phonological and morphological
awareness, and alphabetic knowledge. Many of these interventions were carried out through text-
based activities so it is worth reiterating that it is a somewhat arbitrary categorisation to argue they
focussed predominantly on language – except that the chief focus of the tasks in which the
participants engaged in the intervention were more on vocabulary and word-level activities relative
to literacy. Tables 13 and 16 together show a somewhat mixed set of reviews with respect to both
the WoE criteria and the methodological ratings in Table 16. However, few of these interventions
could be considered to be of very poor quality, and with the exception of Troia (2004) show some
facilitative effects of participation in the treatment conditions. These findings suggest that there is
significant scope for considering implementing interventions like these in the UK context.
Review of interventions with a primary focus on Literacy In this section, we report on the review of the studies with a primary focus on literacy – though
note again that this does not preclude language oriented tasks, rather that the main focus of the
interventions was weighted more on developing literacy and/or comprehension skills. Table 17
illustrates the WoE ratings for these studies.
Table 17. Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on Literacy
24
Study WoE A Trustwothiness of evidence
WoE B Appropriateness of design for this review
WoE C Relevance of Focus for this review
WoE D Overall strength of evidence for this review
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010
High Medium High High
Vadasy & Sanders, 2013
Medium Medium Medium High
Ehri et al., 2007 High Medium High High Proctor et al., 2011
High High Medium Medium
Almaguer, 2005 Low Low High Low Solari & Gerber, 2008
High High Medium High
Tong et al., 2010
Low High High Medium
Kamps et al., 2007
Medium Medium High High
Lugo-Neris et al., 2010
High Medium High High
Graves et al., 2011
Low Medium Medium Low
Vadasy and Sanders (2010, 2013) is an example of an intervention focused on phonics training
and decoding where the 2010 study is the report of the implementation of the intervention and the
2013 paper reports on a two-year follow up of the same intervention and participants. Both of
these papers were rated as ‘high’ overall though there is some variability in terms of their ratings
for each of the WoE criteria. The students in the intervention received individual systematic and
explicit phonics instruction where children participated in sessions aimed to improve their decoding
skills and oral reading practice. The overall results indicated that the intervention students
significantly outperformed control students on measures of alphabetic knowledge, word reading,
spelling, passage reading fluency and reading comprehension and in general indicated significant
positive treatment effects for kindergarten students who averaged in the lower quartile in language
and literacy skills at pretest. In Vadasy and Sanders (2013), follow up analyses on data from 96%
of the original sample were available where there was little loss reported over time, and even small
gains noted. They reported strong positive relationships with each predictor variable and grade 3
outcomes (i.e., the two year follow up). Taken together, therefore, these studies illustrate benefits
of introducing these word-level analyses/activities for students with EAL who are struggling with
reading.
Solari and Gerber (2008) also received an overall high rating on WoE D and like the two Vadasy
and Sanders (2010; 2013) studies were focused in part on phonological features of word reading.
However, Solari and Gerber also investigated listening comprehension and general vocabulary.
Interestingly, Solari and Gerber (2008) was one of the few studies which included listening
comprehension skills in the intervention and directly compared the results of three different
25
treatment conditions which varied in terms of how much time was spent on either phonological
awareness (PA) activities, listening comprehension and vocabulary activities (LC) and alphabetic
knowledge activities. Their results indicated that, not surprisingly, those children who were in the
groups where more time was spent on listening comprehension and vocabulary outperformed the
other children on measures of listening comprehension. However, the listening comprehension
treatment group also had higher scores on outcome measures of phonological awareness. Their
study also included children who were ‘at risk’ for reading difficulties as measured by pre-test
measures of PA and vocabulary and their results indicated that both ‘at risk’ and non at risk
students who received the intervention where LC was emphasized over PA performed equally as
well as those who received only PA or had PA plus alphabetic training. This study is one of the
very few to identify that focusing on listening comprehension skills can not only improve listening
comprehension but at no cost to word level skills (e.g., phonological awareness) and emphasizes
the importance of developing the ‘listening comprehension’ contribution to models of reading
comprehension (e.g., the Simple view of Reading – Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
Ehri et al (2007) and Kamps et al (2007) each received high overall ratings on WoE D and are
both examples of implementing pre-developed (i.e., not researcher designed) interventions aimed
at improving EAL children’s reading performance. Ehri et al (2007) specifically examined the
effectiveness of a version of Reading Recovery, which they refer to as Reading Rescue which (like
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; 2013) included systematic, sequential phonics instruction and decoding
where children read short books which contained both high frequency and decodable words and
included text-implicit and text-explicit questioning predicted to foster reading comprehension.
Kamps et al (2007) implemented three different curricula: ‘Reading Master’, ‘Early Interventions in
Reading’ and ‘Read Well’, each of which is considered an ‘integrated curriculum’ using direct
instruction strategies, teacher modeling and multiple activities and repeated practice to teach and
reinforce literacy skills through guided reading activities. Both of these studies report facilitative
effects of their respective interventions and the Reading Recovery (Rescue) study in particular has
been shown to be effective for struggling readers at the beginning stages of learning how to read
(in either EAL or non-EAL children). The effectiveness of Reading Recovery for EAL children has
been demonstrated in Clancy (2009; 2010) in the UK context.
Lugo-Neris et al (2010) and Almaguer (2005) report on interventions involving some shared
reading activities where Almaguer reports on the effectiveness of reading in pair groups, where
one member of the pair is of a higher reading ability than the other. Lugo-Neris et al report on an
intervention implementing a shared storybook reading programme which included direct and
explicit instruction of vocabulary, as well as through links to the L1, which was Spanish. Both
26
studies report effective results from their interventions. Almaguer (2005) concluded that dyad
(pair) book reading with mixed ability pairs can be effective for both the ‘lead’ and ‘assistant’
reader for both word reading fluency and comprehension and that pair book reading activity is
potentially particularly beneficial for children with EAL who may be reluctant to speak out in class.
Lugo-Neris et al (2010) argued for positive transfer of knowledge between L1 and L2 in word
learning where Spanish expansions of novel vocabulary words during English storybook reading
resulted in comparable or greater growth in children’s expressive knowledge of the target
vocabulary. However this advantage was shown only for 1 out of 3 of the dependent measures
(expressive definitions) used in this study. Graves et al (2011) also report on an intervention which
included guided book reading activities for 6th grade struggling readers, both non-EAL and EAL.
However, while the EAL results were reported separately and suggested benefits of the
intervention for EAL children, the EAL results in particular were somewhat anecdotally reported,
no doubt contributing to the low WoE rating for this study.
Proctor et al (2011) was the only paper in this predominantly ‘literacy’ category which included the
use of software. Specifically they used a Strategic Digital Reading (SDG) prototype called ‘ICON’
(Improving Comprehension Online) with Spanish translation of all texts and human voice
capability. Therefore, like the Lugo-Neris et al (2010) study, students were able to tap in to the L1
in completing the different vocabulary and reading activities with ICON. Proctor et al (2011) report
strong treatment effects for vocabulary - but no effects for comprehension - which the authors
argue may be due to the fact that the ICON intervention did not target the ‘right’ strategies to show
effects on a standardized assessment of reading comprehension. The main treatment effects only
emerged on the researcher-designed outcome measures and not on the standardized measures
used in this study, which undoubtedly contributed to the ‘medium’ rating on the WoE criteria D.
Tong et al (2010) is similar to many of the other studies in this category in that the focus of the
intervention was on word-level skills, word reading fluency and comprehension, however, the
kindergarten students in this study were participating in a Structured English Immersion (SEI)
setting. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition which implemented
an enhanced structured English immersion model or control condition which was the typical SEI
practice. Tong et al (2010) report that their intervention was effective because EAL students in the
enhanced SEI group responded favourably on 5 of their outcome measures: phonological
awareness, knowledge of phonology and syntax, receptive oral language, letter and word
recognition and reading comprehension. The overall WoE criterion for this study was medium,
and it received a particularly damning WoE rating on the trustworthiness of the evidence criterion.
27
These studies were also analysed with respect to their effect size as indicated in Table 18.
Table 18. Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in interventions on literacy Study Effect Size
reported? Outcome measure and effect size Strength of evidence
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010
Yes Across measures, approximate Cohen’s d = 0.83 for EAL and NS combined Across measures, approximate Cohen’s d for EAL only = -0.030
High Medium
Vadasy & Sanders, 2013
Yes Word reading = 0.45 Spelling = 0.36 Reading Comprehension = 0.24
Medium Medium Low
Ehri et al., 2007 Yes Decoding = 0.53 Comprehension = 0.43 Word Reading = 0.72 Word Attack = 0.65
Medium Medium High Medium-High
Proctor et al., 2011 Yes Vocabulary Breadth = 0.84 Vocabulary Depth (Definitions) = 1.26 Vocabulary Depth (Picture) = 1.12
High High High
Almaguer, 2005 Yes Reading Fluency = 0.74 Reading Comprehension = 0.60
High High
Solari & Gerber, 2008 Yes - η2 Range across measures = 0.2 – 0.61
Medium-High
Tong et al., 2010 No Used Multilevel Modeling Kamps et al., 2007 Yes Nonword Fluency = 0.70
Oral Reading Fluency = 0.58 High Medium
Lugo-Neris et al., 2010 Yes - η2 Naming = 0.45
Receptive Vocabulary = 0.85 Expressive Definitions = 0.70
High High High
Graves et al., 2011 Yes Oral Reading Fluency = 0.57 Medium
The effect sizes reported in the studies in this category overall seem higher than those studies
with a focus predominantly on language where there is only one low effect size on reading
comprehension in Vadasy and Sanders (2013). The remaining are generally medium to high
suggesting the treatment effects in these various studies were both statistically significant and
educationally meaningful for the participants.
These studies were then reviewed according to the criteria presented in Table 15, the results of
which are presented in Table 19.
Table 19. Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily focussed on Literacy Study Research
Design Number of Cases
Attrition Outcome Measure
Fidelity & Validity
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010
Medium-High High Medium-High High Medium-High
Vadasy & Sanders, 2013
Medium-High Medium Medium-High High Medium-High
Ehri et al., 2007
Medium Medium Medium High Medium-High
Proctor et al., Medium High Low Medium Medium
28
2011 Almaguer, 2005
Medium-Low Low Low Low Medium-Low
Solari & Gerber, 2008
Medium Low Low Medium-High Medium
Tong et al., 2010
Medium Medium Medium High Medium-High
Kamps et al., 2007
Medium High Low High Medium
Lugo-Neris et al., 2010
Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Graves et al., 2011
Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium-Low
As with the interventions with a predominant focus on language, there are a few discrepancies
between the WoE ratings in Table 17 and the methodological rankings in Table 19. However, as
indicated above, unlike with the WoE criteria, this is in part due to the fact that to obtain a ‘high’ on
‘research design’ it has to be a pure RCT, and to obtain a ‘high’ on the ‘fidelity and validity’
category the evaluators of the intervention have to be independent of the researchers. Neither
was the case for any of the studies reviewed in this in-depth review, hence the lower rankings for
some studies. However, many studies that fell short of having independent evaluators, or a pure
RCT design still nonetheless implemented many careful methodological controls to ensure as
much as possible that threats to the reliability and validity of the intervention were reduced (e.g.,
Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; 2013, Ehri et al, 2007; Tong et al., 2010). Many of these studies did
assign randomly to groups (a key characteristic of an RCT) even if they did not randomly sample
from the population and/or matching procedures between groups were not implemented. As with
the language-oriented interventions, there was some variability across the studies in terms of the
number of participants, the validity of the outcome measures, and whether and to what extent the
interventions had balanced groups and monitored participant attrition. However, none of the
interventions were ranked as exclusively low which would have suggested serious threats to the
design and implementation of the study. Note, however, that the Almaguer (2005) and Graves et
al (2005) studies were both on the low-end of medium suggesting some significant concerns.
The majority of the papers with a primary focus on literacy either focus on explicit instruction of
word-level skills (e.g., phonics, word-level skills (e.g., phonological awareness), alphabetic
knowledge, and reading fluency) through text-based and/or comprehension-based activities.
Many of these studies also examined these variables within the context of shared book or group
reading activities. Both the WoE criteria and the methodological strength of evidence criteria in
Tables 17 and 19 respectively, illustrate a mixed group of studies, with some coming out fairly
highly rated in terms of their strength of evidence and relevance to this review. It is clear,
therefore, that there are some potentially promising possibilities to explore within the UK context.
29
Review of interventions with a primary focus on Continuing Professional Development Table 20 presents the WoE criteria ratings for the five studies that had a primary focus on
continuing professional development as a means to improve EAL children’s English language
and/or literacy outcomes.
Table 20. Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on Continuing Professional Development Study WoE A
Trustwothiness of evidence
WoE B Appropriateness of design for this review
WoE C Relevance of Focus for this review
WoE D Overall strength of evidence for this review
Lara-Alecio et al, 2012
Medium Medium High High
Short et al., 2012
Medium High High Medium
Kim et al., 2011 Medium Low Medium Medium Kotler et al., 2001
Medium Medium High Medium
Matsumura et al., 2010
Medium Medium Low Low
The highest rated study in this category is that by Lara-Alecio et al (2012) which reports a CPD
intervention that included biweekly staff sessions and ongoing workshops with teachers to help
promote the integration of language and literacy development within the science curriculum.
Instructional activities included Daily Oral and Written Language in Science (DOWLS). These
activities were supplemented with CRISELLA (Content area Reading in Science for English
Literacy and Language Acquisition) tasks that focused on vocabulary development and extension
through science-related expository texts. The purpose of these activities was to improve students’
understanding of science concepts but given the inclusion of direct instruction of vocabulary,
pronunciation, definitions and the like, to also improve the children’s English vocabulary and
literacy. This intervention also included the integration of writing in a unit called WAVES (Written
and Academic oral language Vocabulary development in English and Science).
Short et al (2012) describe an intervention focused on a system for lesson planning and delivery
that incorporates what are argued to be best practices for teaching academic English and provides
teachers with a coherent method for improving student achievement. The intervention aimed to
evaluate whether children with EAL who received the CPD through the SIOP (Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol) model had higher achievements in reading, writing, and oral
proficiency in English than teachers who do not receive the SIOP intervention. As with Lara-Alecio
30
et al (2012) the Short et al (2012) received uniformly good (medium-high) ratings on the WoE
criteria.
Kim et al (2011), however, was not deemed by reviewers to be as relevant for the purpose of this
specific review. They describe a study examining the ‘Pathway Project’ which is a CPD
programme that argues for the effectiveness of teaching students cognitive and metacognitive
processes, including modelling, scaffolding, guided practice, and independent use of strategies so
that students develop the ability to select and implement appropriate strategies independently and
to monitor and regulate their use. Teachers used the ‘Reader’s and Writer’s Tool Kit’ where
teachers learned to use pretest, on-demand writing results and Pathway materials to teach a
cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing. Coaches then help teachers
integrate analytical writing strategies into the EAL curriculum which in turn results in the teachers’
use of cognitive strategies in reading and writing activities in their classrooms. This strategy use is
meant to enhance student performance on the on-demand writing assessment which in turn is
meant to result in enhanced student performance on the standardised assessments of English
language arts. This is one of the few studies that included older students (upper secondary level).
Kotler et al (2001) is the only UK study in this review. It describes a CPD programme called
‘Talking Partners’ which presents a model for classroom interaction to help students’ develop oral
language skills aimed at helping teachers establish better interaction in classrooms. The CPD
includes suggesting different types of verbal problem-solving activities to the teachers which are
aimed to stretch the learner and which require interaction with both teacher and other pupils in
small groups.
Matsumura et al (2010) describes research on a CPD programme aimed to support teachers
where there is high teacher turnover (mobility) in urban districts, which also is an area where many
children with EAL live and attend school. The implication is that the high teacher mobility can
have a negative impact on the quality of teaching, hence the development of the “Content-
Focused Coaching” (CFC) - aimed at providing teachers with a coach to help support them in their
teaching of reading comprehension. The purpose of the study was to examine the CFC
programme’s effectiveness in primary schools with high numbers of low income, minority, EAL
students.
The effect sizes reported for these five studies are presented in Table 21 and unlike the language
and literacy categories of studies, the effect sizes, when reported, are comparatively low. While
most of these studies reported reasonably good measures for ensuring fidelity to treatment (see
31
Table 22), the general impact on the students’ performance nonetheless seems to be less
educationally significant (i.e., smaller effect sizes) in this group of studies on CPD activities.
Table 21. Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in interventions on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Study Effect Size
reported? Outcome measure and effect size Strength of evidence
Lara-Alecio et al, 2012 Yes (Cramer’s V and partial η2
)
District reading test 1 through 6 = 0.103-0.238 TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) in reading 0.11 DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills) = 0.134 (partial η2
)
Low-Medium Low-Medium Low
Short et al., 2012 Yes Writing = 0.31 Reading = 0.16 Oral = 0.29
Low-Medium Low Low-Medium
Kim et al., 2011 No Used Multilevel modeling Kotler et al., 2001 No Matsumura et al., 2010 No Used multilevel modeling
We then applied the criteria in Table 15 on the key methodological variables to these five studies,
the results of which are presented in Table 22.
Table 22. Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily focussed on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Study Research
Design
Number of Cases
Attrition Outcome Measure
Fidelity & Validity
Lara-Alecio et al, 2012
Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-High Medium
Short et al., 2012
Medium Low-Medium Medium-Low Medium Medium
Kim et al., 2011
Medium Medium Medium Medium-High Medium
Kotler et al., 2001
Low Low Low Medium Low
Matsumura et al., 2010
Medium-Low Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium
As with the other studies in this review, none of them achieved a rating of ‘high’ on the ‘fidelity and
validity’ category or the ‘research design’ category. While two of the studies were on the high end
of medium on outcome measures (Lara-Alecio et al, 2012; Kim et al., 2011) none of these studies
were rated as high on any of these criteria. However, only one study had a more uniform ‘low’
rating (Kotler et al, 2001), ratings which are consistently lower than the WoE criteria for this study
in Table 20. This is due most likely because while the focus of the Kotler et al (2001) study is
highly relevant for this review – i.e., a CPD programme aimed to enhance verbal interaction in
classrooms aimed at improving EAL children’s English language – from a methodological point of
32
view it fell short on a number of variables. Short et al (2012) included a small number of teachers
(23 in treatment and 19 in control), but a reasonable number of students (278 EAL in treatment
group and 169 in control) and while the low number of teachers can influence the intervention, the
higher number of students who were yielding the data for the outcome measures was more
appropriate resulting in a mixed rating of Low-Medium for ‘number of cases’. Unfortunately, the
CPD interventions generally receive a lower rating on methodological characteristics.
Review of interventions with a primary focus on family literacy practice This final sub-category of studies in this review were those two studies that focused on some
aspect of family literacy practice. The WoE criteria for these two studies are presented in Table 23
and illustrate that the Harper et al (2011) study is quite highly rated in comparison to the Kim and
Guryan (2010) study.
Table 23. Weight of Evidence assessments for studies with a primary focus on family literacy practice. Study WoE A
Trustwothiness of evidence
WoE B Appropriateness of design for this review
WoE C Relevance of Focus for this review
WoE D Overall strength of evidence for this review
Harper et al, 2011
High High Medium High
Kim & Guryan, 2010
Medium Medium High Medium
The aim of Harper et al (2011) - a study carried out in Canada - was to evaluate a family literacy
program on EAL children’s early reading development by looking at EAL and non-EAL children’s
scores in 3 areas of early reading before and after families’ participation in the program compared
against a control group of ELL and non-EAL children. Kindergarten children (aged 4-6) and their
parents with a range of L1s participated in a 9-week family literacy programme featuring joint
parent-child activities related to language and literacy development. The programme provided
parents with information and ideas for creative and meaningful ways to enhance their children’s
emergent literacy skills. The results indicate a significant program effect for EAL children but not
for EL1 children where children with EAL demonstrated significantly greater gains in their ability to
infer meaning from print against NS children and EAL children who did not participate in the
intervention.
Kim and Guryan (2010) aimed to prevent summer reading loss by sending books to children’s
homes and to encourage independent reading during summer holidays. Children were randomly
assigned to one of 3 conditions: i) children received 10 self selected books in the mail, ii) a family
33
literacy group where children received 10 self selected books and were invited to attend three 2-
hour family literacy events and, iii) a control group where children received 10 self selected books
after post test. The results of their study suggested that children in the treatment and family
literacy groups (groups 1 and 2) reported reading more books over the summer than children in
the control group however, there was no effect on reading achievement - neither treatment group,
with or without the parent literacy training - had an effect on the outcome measures. Therefore,
this study, like Troia (2004) is one of the few in this review that does not report statistically
significant facilitative effects for participating in the intervention.
The effect sizes for the interventions on family literacy practice are presented in Table 24.
Table 24. Treatment effect sizes on outcomes measures for children with EAL in interventions on family literacy practice Study Effect Size
reported? Outcome measure and effect size Strength of evidence
Harper et al, 2011
Yes (partial η2) Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-3):
range across effects = 0.02 – 0.57 Alphabet Knowledge (range across effects) = 0.04 – 0.46 Conventions of Print (range across effects) = 0.01 – 0.20 Meaning (range across effects) = 0.03 – 0.24
Low-Medium Low-Medium Low Low
Kim & Guryan, 2010
No
Kim and Guryan (2010) did not report effect sizes in their analyses. Harper et al, however, report
low to medium level effects. As with the interventions on CPD therefore, the interventions on
family literacy seemed to have less of an impact on students’ outcomes, even if still statistically
significant.
Table 25 presents the additional methodological strength of evidence for these two studies.
Table 25. Methodological strength of evidence criteria for interventions primarily focussed on family literacy practice. Study Research
Design
Number of Cases
Attrition Outcome Measure
Fidelity & Validity
Harper et al, 2011
Medium Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium Medium
Kim & Guryan, 2010
Medium Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Medium
Harper et al (2011) included data from 132 children and their families and came from a range of
different L1 backgrounds but as is the case with the UK, a higher proportion came from South
Asian language families (e.g., Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi). There was a degree of attrition in that not all
families participated in each of the 9 sessions that formed this intervention, however, this attrition
34
was thoroughly monitored and reported and it did not result in substantial imbalance between the
groups, hence the low end of Medium rating on ‘attrition’. The study included one standardised
assessment (TERA-3) which measures aspects of English reading but also a researcher-designed
parent questionnaire aimed providing general information about the children in the study. Kim and
Guryan (2010) were able to randomly assign children and their families to the different groups in
their study and collected data from a range of background variables that were used to ensure
matched groups. They also report the attrition from pre-test as being at 12% and carried out a chi-
square analysis to show that there was no statistical relationship between experimental conditions
and attrition rates. Different implementation checks were applied to try and gauge the extent to
which the books being sent home were at appropriate levels for the children and the extent to
which families participated in the summer literacy events. While Harper et al (2011) received
generally higher WoE ratings than the Kim and Guryan (2010) study, in examining the specific
methodological variables in Table 25, the two family literacy based studies are fairly similarly
ranked.
Conclusions and Implications In the previous sections we outlined the protocol followed to identify the 29 studies included in an
in-depth review of intervention studies aimed to improve some aspect of EAL children’s English
language and/or literacy. The results of the review indicated that the significant majority of the
studies were carried out in the context of the US. This finding demonstrates the urgent need to
carry out controlled intervention studies within the UK context. The educational and social
infrastructure of the US is very different from the UK, hence making generalisations across US-
based studies to the UK is somewhat reckless. Furthermore, the population of EAL students in
the US is quite different in that a large proportion of minority language learners in the US are
Spanish-speaking, hence drawing on the L1 is feasible and indeed appropriate where there is a
degree of homogeneity in the L1 of EAL students. In most parts of the UK, there is far less
consistency with respect to EAL children’s L1 background which makes it more challenging to
explicitly use the L1 in targeted interventions aimed at improving children’s English language
and/or literacy.
The review also indicated that the majority of the studies focused on either some aspect of
vocabulary or word-level skills such as phonological awareness, decoding, alphabetic knowledge
and morphological awareness. Within those studies that focused on vocabulary, a large number
targeted academic vocabulary specifically. Undoubtedly this focus on vocabulary is due in part to
the considerable number of research studies that have clearly identified strong predictive
relationships between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (e.g., Nation &
35
Snowling, 1998; 2004). Furthermore, a number of studies have identified that children with EAL
tend to have less vocabulary knowledge than non-EAL peers (e.g., Bialystok, Luck, Peets & Yang,
2010; Cameron, 2002). It is not surprising therefore, to see that an area of focus in intervention
studies is to enhance vocabulary knowledge in children with EAL. The specific focus on academic
vocabulary is again reflected in the numerous studies that have argued for the importance of
academic language in underpinning curricular achievement (e.g., Cummins, 2000; 2012). More
research aimed at enhancing vocabulary knowledge needs to be carried out in the UK context.
It is worth considering why there has been such a focus on vocabulary, phonics, decoding and
alphabetic knowledge in these interventions. As indicated earlier, current thinking about the
potential reasons underpinning the reported lower levels of academic achievement in many
students with EAL suggest weaker reading comprehension skills may in part be responsible.
Indeed, some children with EAL in the UK have been shown to lag behind their non-EAL peers on
measures of reading comprehension, despite having comparable skills in single word reading
(decoding) (Bourgoyne, Whitely & Hutchinson, 2011; Bourgoyne, Kelly, Whitely & Spooner, 2009;
Hutchinson, Whitely, Smith & Connors, 2003). This focus on vocabulary is particularly important
since the EAL children in these studies did not have a problem with single word reading, decoding
and alphabetic knowledge, yet they nonetheless were significantly behind their non-EAL peers in
comprehension. This is presumably due to the fact that their general vocabulary knowledge was
less well elaborated relative to non-EAL peers. Within the Simple View of Reading model (Gough
& Tunmer, 1986), reading comprehension is conceived of as being made up of comprehension
skills (vocabulary and listening comprehension) as well as decoding/phonics skills. If children with
EAL typically have good decoding skills, as has been demonstrated in numerous studies, yet
nonetheless lag behind non-EAL peers in reading comprehension, then vocabulary is a good
candidate for intervention given the number of studies that have demonstrated a general lack of
vocabulary knowledge in EAL children relative to non-EAL peers. The studies in this in-depth
review which focussed on these types of vocabulary certainly proved to be successful, either in
terms of the students’ learning of the target vocabulary of the study or in terms of wider more
literacy-based measures (e.g., Mancilla-Martinez, 2010).
These issues are particularly important when considering approximately 95%-98% of the
vocabulary in a text needs to be understood in order to be able to derive a general meaning of the
text (Schmitt, Jiang & Grabe, 2011), though this percentage does vary somewhat depending on
the text. Given the importance of knowing almost all of the words in a text to extract meaning from
it, expanding all pupils’ vocabulary, but particularly EAL pupils, is likely to be effective as has been
demonstrated by many of the studies in this review. Academic vocabulary is of particular
36
importance because there are many words which are unlikely to occur in conversation but which
are likely to turn up in a wide range of academic texts. It is estimated that there are about 7,000
word families which fall into this category. Teachers cannot possibly explicitly teach 7,000 word
families but they can teach some, and they can also teach strategies for learning new words
based on morphemes (i.e., the smallest meaningful unit of words) from which words are
constructed. This was an effective approach adopted in a number of studies (e.g., Kieffer &
Lesaux, 2012; Lesaux et al, 2010).
Some children struggle with reading (both non-EAL and EAL) and those readers who have lower
scores on measures of reading and reading comprehension can have a range of different
difficulties which lead to their weaker performance. Some readers struggle with the decoding
aspect of reading - mapping phonemes on to graphemes. Whereas generally speaking children
with EAL do not have this problem, we would still expect to find a proportion of the EAL population
who have difficulty with decoding. A number of the studies in this review reported on evidence
where children were ‘at risk’ or were struggling readers as identified by their low performance on
pre-test measures of word knowledge and single word reading performance. In these cases,
focussing on word-level skills such as phonics, decoding, and alphabetic knowledge, is important
and as the studies in this review attest, can be effective. For example, Vadasy and Sanders
(2010; 2013) and Ehri et al (2007) were some of the examples of effective interventions aimed at
improving word reading performance in children who struggle with these aspects of reading.
Therefore, interventions which focus on vocabulary, and specific aspects of word reading (e.g.,
decoding) can be effective for a number of different reasons, but clearly must be aimed at the
needs of the students. Students who have particular difficulties with single word reading, and
reading accuracy/fluency can benefit from interventions which improve their alphabetic knowledge
and decoding skills (e.g., Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; 2013; Ehri et al, 2007). Students who have
good decoding skills, yet who nonetheless have lower reading comprehension scores than non-
EAL children can benefit primarily from vocabulary interventions that improve children’s word
knowledge, and specifically with academic vocabulary which may not be encountered as
frequently as other more all-purpose words.
There were five examples of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes in this
review. This small number is somewhat surprising in that pedagogical approaches are the most
obvious starting point for considering improving EAL students’ academic achievement. However, a
number of the interventions included some form of CPD even if it was not the main focus (see
Table 12). One of the main themes that emerged from a review of research on EAL provision
37
commissioned by the then Training and Development Agency (TDA) indicated that there was a
lack of specialised staff, that management of EAL provision was ill-defined, that there was too
much crossover with Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision, and that there was a need for
more EAL-focused training for teachers due to a striking absence of EAL pedagogy (Andrews,
2009). Andrews (2009) was carried out when EMAS (Ethnic Minority Achievement Service) teams
were still largely in place, whereas currently funding for EMAS has been largely withdrawn and
hence there is arguably even less support for the development of effective EAL pedagogy.
Andrews’s (2009) review was carried out in the UK context and of the 5 CPD studies that were
included in this review, four of these were carried out in the context of the US. Therefore, there is
a considerable need for further research that examines more precisely how CPD can support
teachers of children with EAL through carefully controlled intervention studies.
There were only two intervention studies that examined the role of parents/family in enhancing
EAL children’s language and/or literacy performance, and of these, only one (Harper et al 2011)
reported beneficial effects for the EAL pupils in their sample. This lack of focus on parent-oriented
interventions and mixed level of success may reflect Gorard and See’s (2013) findings that
primary-age interventions which enhance parental involvement are generally ineffective in
increasing children’s attainment. This is a somewhat surprising finding given the number of studies
suggesting that the environment in the home is such a powerful predictor of children’s levels of
academic success (Murphy, 2014) and is clearly an area that would benefit from further attention.
Parental involvement in the context of children with EAL might be particularly amenable to
intervention if it helped those parents with weaker English skills to bridge the home language –
school language barrier. In other words, outcomes which were not included in this review such as
attendance, engagement with school, well being etc., may benefit from targeted intervention for
parents of children with EAL.
Many of the studies in this review focused on primary school children, with far fewer aimed at
enhancing the English language and/or literacy skills of secondary school students, and only one
which was targeted at older secondary school pupils. However, later secondary school years are
particularly important in that most children take high stakes national examinations at this stage in
their educational development. It would be worth expanding the breadth of research on children
with EAL to encompass all of the formal education years, with studies aimed at facilitating the
transition from primary to secondary as well as examining best practice and support for older
secondary school students with EAL.
38
There were also rather mixed findings in terms of the strength of evidence of the in-depth review
studies. There were no examples of pure RCT studies or those where the effectiveness of the
intervention was evaluated by an independent review team. However, many studies did include
many characteristics of RCT designs and incorporated a number of careful methodological
practices to ensure fidelity to treatment and to establish appropriate matching (e.g., random
assignment to groups). Nonetheless, there were some studies that had rather low ratings across
a range of criteria suggesting an undesirable level of variability in the overall methodological rigour
of these studies.
As with all research there are a number of limitations to this review and two main ones are worth
highlighting here. As with all research the results are methodological artefact. In other words, the
results obtained are a direct consequence of the methodology adopted. This review is no different
in that the use of different search terms, different databases and/or different exclusion/inclusion
criteria would have likely yielded different studies in the in-depth review. Secondly, there is a level
of subjectivity in how reviewers weigh evidence of research studies in systematic reviews such as
this one. Some reviewers may have weighed some studies’ characteristics differently than others.
We attempted to mitigate against this subjectivity as much as possible in having two independent
(blind) reviewers, and in applying a two-tiered process of review. Despite these limitations,
however, this review has objectively identified a range of studies that are relevant for the review
questions and which identify a number of interesting studies which offer credible evidence
concerning the development of EAL pupils’ English language and/or literacy skills.
The results of this review then, suggest that there are some promising areas to explore further with
respect to how to best support children with EAL in their English language and/or literacy
outcomes. These are in the areas of developing English vocabulary and word-level skills, phonics
and alphabetic knowledge for struggling readers (e.g., reading recovery) and developing book
reading activities with appropriate explicit instruction of vocabulary together with comprehension
strategies. Specifically, children with EAL who struggle with word reading can benefit most from
those interventions that focus on alphabetic knowledge, phonics, phonological awareness and
other such word-level skills. Children with EAL who have good decoding skills but who
nonetheless fall short of non-EAL peers on measures of reading comprehension benefit most from
explicit (academic) vocabulary instruction, and strategy training to enhance their abilities to
analyse words through their morphological structure. However, as only one study was carried out
in the UK it is not appropriate to assume that these effective interventions will be immediately
transferable to a UK context. Therefore, there is considerable scope for research that implements
interventions aimed at these linguistic features in children with EAL in the UK. Furthermore,
39
research which examines how best to support the CPD of teachers and how to support parents of
children with EAL are also likely to be fruitful areas for future investigation. CPD was a component
of many of the interventions discussed in this review, and while the parent-focussed interventions
where themselves less effective in terms of improving English language/literacy outcomes in
children with EAL, it is possible that such parental support interventions might be able to improve
other outcome variables (such as attendance and engagement with school, etc) that in turn might
have positive influences on EAL children’s English language and literacy outcomes. Further
carefully conducted intervention studies in these areas are likely to yield useful results which in
turn can equip teachers and schools with credible evidence upon which to develop effective
support for children with EAL.
About the authors: Professor Victoria Murphy is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford Adam Unthiah is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford
40
References
Almaguer, I. (2005). Effects of Dyad Reading Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Hispanic
Third-Grade English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 509–526
Andrews, R. (2009). Review of research in English as an Additional Language (EAL). London:
NRDC Institute of Education.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K.F. & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in
monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525-531.
Burgoyne, K., Kelly, J.M., Whiteley, H.E. & Spooner, A. (2009). The comprehension skills of
children learning English as an additional language. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
79, 735-747.
Burgoyne, K., Whiteley, H.E. & Hutchinson, J.M. (2011). The development of comprehension and
reading-related skills in children learning English as an additional language and their monolingual
English-speaking peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 344-354.
Calhoon, M. B., Otaiba, S. A., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a Peer-Mediated
Program on Reading Skill Acquisition for Two-Way Bilingual First-Grade Classrooms. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 169. doi:10.2307/30035562
Cameron, L. (2002). Measuring vocabulary size in English as an Additional Language. Language
Teaching Research, 6(2), 145-173.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., Mclaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T. J., &
White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3
Cena, J., Baker, D. L., Kame’enui, E. J., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., & Smolkowski, K. (2013). The
impact of a systematic and explicit vocabulary intervention in Spanish with Spanish-speaking
English learners in first grade. Reading and Writing, 26(8), 1289–1316. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-
9419-y
Chall, J. (1983). Learning to Read: The Great Debate. Wiley: New York.
41
Cirino, P. T., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D.
J. (2009). One-Year Follow-Up Outcomes of Spanish and English Interventions for English
Language Learners at Risk for Reading Problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3),
744–781. doi:10.3102/0002831208330214
Clancy, C. (2009). Reading Recovery and young English language learners: A small scale study
considering the effects of early intervention on learner outcomes. Unpublished MSc thesis.
University of Oxford, UK.
Clancy, C. (2010). Investigating the suitability of the Reading Recovery tests for use with EAL
children. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of Oxford, UK.
Crevecoeur, Y. C., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). English Language Learners and
English-Only Learners’ Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
30(1), 51–78. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.758943
Cruz de Quirós, A. M., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., & Irby, B. J. (2012). The effect of a structured
story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and
literacy acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(1), 87–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9817.2010.01472.x
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of
reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, 25, 1973-1990.
Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of Two Tutoring
Programs on the English Reading Development of Spanish-English Bilingual Students.
Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289.
Dressler, C., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Spanish-speaking
students’ use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 14(2), 243–255. doi:10.1017/S1366728910000519
42
Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading Rescue: An Effective Tutoring
Intervention Model for Language-Minority Students Who Are Struggling Readers in First Grade.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 414–448. doi:10.3102/0002831207302175
Filippini, A. L., Gerber, M. M., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2012). A Vocabulary-Added Reading Intervention
for English Learners At-Risk of Reading Difficulties. International Journal of Special Education,
27(3), 14–26.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford:
Blackwell.
García, O. & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices
for English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.M. & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating
English Language Learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Giambo, D. A., & Mckinney, J. D. (2004). The Effects of a Phonological Awareness Intervention on
the Oral English Proficiency of Spanish-Speaking Kindergarten Children. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1),
95–117. doi:10.2307/3588260
Goodrich, J. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Farver, J. M. (2013). Do Early Literacy Skills in Children’s First
Language Promote Development of Skills in Their Second Language? An Experimental Evaluation
of Transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 414–426. doi:10.1037/a0031780
Gorard, S & See, B.H. (2013). Do parental involvement interventions increase attainment? A
review of the evidence. Nuffield Foundation Briefing Paper.
Gough, D. (2007). Weight of Evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance
of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228.
Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2012). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. London:
Sage.
Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
43
Graves, A., Duesbery, L., Pyle, N., Brandon, R., & McIntosh, A. (2011). Two Studies of Tier II
Literacy Development: Throwing Sixth Graders a Lifeline. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4),
641–661.
Greenfader, C. M., & Brouillette, L. (2013). Boosting Language Skills of English Learners Through
Dramatization and Movement. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 171–180. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1192
Harper, S., Platt, A., & Pelletier, J. (2011). Unique Effects of a Family Literacy Program on the
Early Reading Development of English Language Learners. Early Education and Development,
22(6), 989–1008.
Hopewell, S. (2011). Leveraging bilingualism to accelerate English reading comprehension.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 603–620.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.564274
Hutchinson, J.M., Whiteley, H.E., Smith, C.D. & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental
progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in
Reading, 26(1), 19-32.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., Culppepper,
M., & Walton, C. (2007). Use of Evidence-Based, Small-Group Reading Instruction for English
Language Learners in Elementary Grades: Secondary-Tier Intervention. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30(3), 153–168.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Effects of Academic Language Instruction on Relational and
Syntactic Aspects of Morphological Awareness for Sixth Graders from Linguistically Diverse
Backgrounds. Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 519–545.
Kim, J. S., & Guryan, J. (2010). The Efficacy of a Voluntary Summer Book Reading Intervention
for Low-Income Latino Children from Language Minority Families. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(1), 20–31.
Kim, J. S., Olson, C. B., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., Pearson, M., van Dyk, D., Collins, P., & Land,
R. E. (2011). A Randomized Experiment of a Cognitive Strategies Approach to Text-Based
44
Analytical Writing for Mainstreamed Latino English Language Learners in Grades 6 to 12. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 231–263.
Kotler, A., Wegerif, R., & Levoi, M. (2001). Oracy and the Educational Achievement of Pupils with
English as an Additional Language: The Impact of Bringing “Talking Partners” into Bradford
Schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(6), 403–419.
doi:10.1080/13670050108667740
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an
instructional intervention on middle school English learners’ science and English reading
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987–1011. doi:10.1002/tea.21031
Lawrence, J. F., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C., & Snow, C. E. (2012). Language
proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development: A longitudinal follow-up
of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 437–451.
doi:10.1017/S1366728911000393
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The Effectiveness and Ease of
Implementation of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Linguistically Diverse Students in
Urban Middle Schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228.
Lesaux, N.K., Koda, K., Siegel, L. & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy. In D. August
& T. Shanahan (Eds). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national
literacy panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lugo-Neris, M. J., Jackson, C. W., & Goldstein, H. (2010). Facilitating Vocabulary Acquisition of
Young English Language Learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3),
314–327. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0082)
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Benefits of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Support
Reading Acquisition in English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 301–315.
doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.622829
Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2010). Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in
Fifth-Grade Spanish-Speaking Language Minority Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 669–699.
doi:10.5054/tq.2010.213782
45
Marx, A.E. & Stanat, P. (2012). Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany:
Research evidence on determinants and target points for intervention. Reading and Writing, 25,
1929-1945.
Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H. E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., & Bickel, D. D. (2010). Investigating the
Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Literacy Coaching Program in Schools with High Teacher
Mobility. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35–62.
McKendry, M. & Murphy, V.A. (2011). A comparative study of listening comprehension measures
in English as an additional language and native English-speaking primary school children.
Evaluation and Research in Education, 24, 17 – 40.
Murphy, V.A. (2014). Learning a second language in the early school years: Trends and
contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NALDIC (2014). National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum.
http://www.naldic.org.uk/
Nation, K. & Snowling, M. (1998). Semantic processing skills and the development of word
recognition: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory &
Language, 39, 85-101.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute
to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342-356.
Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A Cognitive Strategies Approach to Reading and Writing
Instruction for English Language Learners in Secondary School. Research in the Teaching of
English, 41(3), 269–303.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2003). Where immigrant students
succeed - A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Report published
by the OECD.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A
handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd Edition). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
46
Peugh, J.L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1),
85-112.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., & Neugebauer, S. (2011).
Improving Comprehension Online: Effects of Deep Vocabulary Instruction with Bilingual and
Monolingual Fifth Graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 517–544.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X. & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43.
Schoenbrodt, L., Kerins, M., & Gesell, J. (2010). Using Narrative Language Intervention as a Tool
to Increase Communicative Competence in Spanish-Speaking Children. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 16(1), 48–59. doi:10.1080/07908310308666656
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing Academic Language in English
Language Learners Through Sheltered Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334–361.
doi:10.1002/tesq.20
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating Knowledge of Academic Language
among Urban Middle School Students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 325–
344.
Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. M. (2008). Early Comprehension Instruction for Spanish-Speaking
English Language Learners: Teaching Text-Level Reading Skills While Maintaining Effects on
Word-Level Skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 155–168. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2008.00273.x
Spycher, P. (2009). Learning Academic Language through Science in Two Linguistically Diverse
Kindergarten Classes. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359–379.
Stanat, P. & Christensen, G.S. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review
of performances and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., Yoon, M., & Mathes, P. G. (2010). Hispanic English Learners’
Responses to Longitudinal English Instructional Intervention and the Effect of Gender: A Multilevel
Analysis. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 542–566.
47
Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008). Accelerating Early Academic
Oral English Development in Transitional Bilingual and Structured English Immersion Programs.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011-1044. doi:10.3102/0002831208320790
Townsend, D., & Collins, P. (2009). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an
intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 993–1019. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9141-y
Troia, G. A. (2004). Migrant Students with Limited English Proficiency: Can Fast ForWord
Language? Make a Difference in Their Language Skills and Academic Achievement? Remedial
and Special Education, 25(6), 353–366.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics-Based Instruction for
Low-Skilled Kindergarteners in the Context of Language Minority Status and Classroom Phonics
Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786–803.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for
lower-skilled first-graders: the influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade
literacy outcomes. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 821–843. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C.,
Pollard-Durodola, S., Fletcher, D. J., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish
Intervention and an English Intervention for English-Language Learners at Risk for Reading
Problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449–487.
doi:10.3102/00028312043003449
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-Durodola, S.
D., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-
grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(1), 56–73.
48
Appendix A – Studies from the Systematic Keyword Map (n = 44) Authors Title Date Publication Country Setting Participants L1 Sample Almaguer Effects of Dyad
Reading Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Hispanic Third-Grade English Language Learners
2005 Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 29:3, 509-526
USA Mainstream grade 3 classes
EAL only Spanish Control group=40 Experimental group=40
Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, and Avalos
Effects of a Peer-Mediated Program on Reading Skill Acquisition for Two-Way Bilingual First-Grade Classrooms
2007 Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol.30, No.3, p.169-184
USA Bilingual grade 1 classes. Treatment delivered as supplemental reading class
EAL and NS combined in treatment and contrast groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish PALS group=43 Contrast group=33
Carlo, August, Mclaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lippman, Lively, and White
Closing the Gap: Addressing the Vocabulary Needs of English-Language Learners in Bilingual and Mainstream Classrooms
2004 Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.39, No.2, p.188-215
USA Mainstream and bilingual grade 5 classes
EAL and NS combined in treatment and comparison groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish Comparison groups=85 Treatment groups=169
Cena, Baker, Kame’enui, Baker, Park, & Smolkowski
The impact of a systematic and explicit vocabulary intervention in Spanish with Spanish-speaking English learners in first grade
2013 Reading and Writing, 24, 1289-1316
USA Early transition model bilingual program
EAL only Spanish G-SETR intervention=26 VE-SETR intervention=24
Cirino, Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Cardenas-Hagan,
One-Year Follow-Up Outcomes of Spanish and English Interventions for English Language
2009 American Research Journal, Vol.46, No.3, p.744-781
USA Bilingual early transition grade 2 classes
EAL only Spanish English study comparison group Cohort I=11 English study intervention group
49
Fletcher, and Francis
Learners at Risk for Reading Problems
Cohort I=18 English study comparison group Cohort II=44 English study intervention group Cohort II=38
Crevecoeur, Coyne, and McCoach
English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction
2013 Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, Vol.30, p.51-78
USA Mainstream kindergartens
EAL and NS combined in treatment and control groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish Control groups=42 Treatment groups=79
Cruz de Quirós, Lara-Alecio, Tong
The Effect of a Structured Story Reading Intervention, Story Retelling and Higher Order Thinking for English Language and Literacy Acquisition
2012 Journal of Research in Reading, Vol.35, Issue 1, p.87-113
USA Transitional bilingual classes grades 1 to 2
EAL only Spanish Control group=38 Treatment group=34
Denton, Anthony, Parker, and Hasbrouck
Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students
2004 The Elementary School Journal, Vol.104, No.4, p.289-305
USA Grades 2-5 bilingual classrooms
EAL only Spanish Real Well comparison group=14 Read Well treatment group=19 Read Naturally comparison group=28 Read Naturally treatment group=32
Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August, & White
Spanish-speaking students’ use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words
2011 Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 243-255
USA One on one with researcher
8 EAL and 4 NS Spanish 12 across one control group and one treatment group
Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, and
Reading Rescue: An Effective Tutoring
2007 American Educational
USA Mainstream grade 1
EAL only Spanish Control group 1=62 Control group 2=60
50
Gross Intervention Model for Language-Minority Students Who Are Struggling Readers in First Grade
Research Journal, Vol.44, No.2, p.414-448
classes Intervention group=64
Filippini, Gerber, & Leafstedt
A Vocabulary-Added Reading Intervention for English Learners At-Risk of Reading Difficulties
2012 International Journal Of Special Education, 27(3), 14-26
USA Supplementary classes to mainstream arts classes
EAL and 10 NS designated as limited English proficient.
Spanish 71 across 3 treatment groups
Giambo and McKinney
The Effects of a Phonological Awareness Intervention on the Oral English Proficiency of Spanish-Speaking Kindergarten Children
2004 TESOL Quarterly, Vol.38, Issue 1, p.95-117
USA Mainstream kindergarten classes
EAL only Spanish Comparison group=40 Treatment group=40
Goodrich, Lonigan, & Farver
Do Early Literacy Skills in Children's First Language Promote Development of Skills in Their Second Language? An Experimental Evaluation of Transfer
2013 Journal of Educational Psychology 105(2), 414-425
USA English only and transitioning from Spanish to English
EAL only Spanish 94 across 2 treatment conditions and one control group
Graves, Duesbery, Pyle, Brandon, and McIntosh
Two Studies Of Tier II Literacy Development: Throwing Sixth Graders a Lifeline
2011 The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), p.641-661
USA Mainstream grade 6 classes
EAL, NS, and participants with learning disabilities. Results presented separately for all groups.
n/a ORF control group=28 ORF treatment group=31 Vocabulary control group=26 Vocabulary treatment group=31 MAZE control group=24 MAZE treatment group=28
51
Greenfader & Brouillette
Boosting language skills of English learners through dramatization and movement
2013 The Reading Teacher 67(3), 171-180
USA Mainstream kindergarten and first grade classes
EAL only 88%-91% Hispanic
Kindergarten=130 treatment, 1407 control. First grade=131 treatment, 1544 control
Harper, Platt, and Pelletier
Unique Effects of a Family Literacy Program on the Early Reading Development of English Language Learners
2011 Early Education and Development, 22(4), 989-1008
Canada Family literacy program
EAL and NS in both treatment and control groups. Separate results for EAL
South Asian language 49%, East Asian language=26%, European language=12%, Middle Eastern language=10%, Other=2%
132 across two experimental groups and two control groups
Hopewell Leveraging bilingualism to accelerate English reading comprehension
2011 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 603-620
USA Biliteracy classrooms
EAL only Spanish 41 across two treatment groups
Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Wills, Longstaff, Culpepper, and Walton
Use of Evidence-Based, Small-Group Reading Instruction for English Language Learners in Elementary Grades: Secondary-Tier Intervention
2007 Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol.30, p.153-168
USA Mainstream grade 1 and grade 2 classes
EAL and NS combined in control and treatment groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish=99% Somalian, Sudanese, Vietnamese
Comparison group=113 (of which 60 EAL) Experimental group=117 (of which84 EAL)
Kieffer, and Lesaux
Effects of Academic Language Instruction on Relational and Syntactic Aspects of Morphological Awareness for Sixth Graders from Linguistically Diverse
2012 The Elementary School Journal, Vol.112, Issue 3, p.519-545
USA Mainstream grade 6 classes
EAL and NS. EAL and NS combined in treatment and comparison groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish=59.9%, Vietnamese=1.9%, Lao=1.7%, Hmong=1.3%, Somali=1.5%, Pilipino/Tagalog=2.3%, Other=6.7%
Control group=183 Treatment group=299
52
Backgrounds Kim, and Guryan
The Efficacy of a Voluntary Summer Book Reading Intervention for Low-Income Latino Children from Language Minority Families
2010 Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.102, No.1, p.20-31
USA Voluntary summer book reading program
EAL only Spanish Control group=110 Treatment group=102
Kim, Olson, Scarcella, Kramer, Pearson, van Dyk, Collins, and Land
A Randomized Experiment of a Cognitive Strategies Approach to Text-Based Analytical Writing for Mainstreamed Latino English Language Learners in Grades 6 to 12
2011 Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4:231-263
USA Mainstream classes grades 6 to 12
EAL Primarily Spanish
779 in total Control group=51 classrooms Treatment group=52 classrooms
Kotler, Wegerif, and LeVoi
Oracy and the Educational Achievement of Pupils with English as an Additional Language: The Impact of Bringing "Talking Partners" into Bradford Schools.
2001 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol.4, No.6, p.403-419
UK Mainstream classes for 5 to 8 year old pupils (years 1 to 3)
EAL only Punjabi, Sylheti Control group=63 Treatment group=64
Lara-Alecio, Tong, Irby, Guerrero, Huerta, & Fan
The Effect of an Instructional Intervention on Middle School English Learners' Science and English Reading Achievement
2012 Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987-1011
USA Mainstream science and English classes
EAL and NS. Results combined in both treatment and control groups
Spanish 166 across 2 treatment groups and 80 across 2 control groups
Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin, White, and
Language proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary
2012 Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
USA Mainstream grades 7 and 8 classes
EAL, NS, and LEP in treatment and comparison groups. Results for EAL
n/a Comparison groups=204-525 EAL Treatment groups=680-1179
53
Snow development: A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program
15, pp 437-451
presented separately
EAL
Lesaux, Kieffer, Falley, and Kelley
The Effectiveness and Ease of Implementation of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Linguistically Diverse Students in Urban Middle Schools
2010 Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.45, No.2, p.196-228
USA Mainstream grade 6 classes
EAL and NS combined in treatment and control groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish=59.9%, Vietnamese=1.9%, Lao=1.7%, Hmong=1.3%, Somali=1.5%, Pilipino/Tagalog=2.3%, Other=6.7%
Control group=180 Treatment group=296
Lugo-Neris, Jackson, and Goldstein
Facilitating Vocabulary Acquisition of Young English Language Learners
2010 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol.41, p.314-327
USA Summer education program
EAL only Spanish 22 across two treatment groups
Macaruso and Rodman
Benefits of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Support Reading Acquisition in English Language Learners
2011 Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 34: 301-315
USA Bilingual classes
EAL only Spanish 37 in control group and 29 in treatment group
Mancilla-Martinez
Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade Spanish-Speaking Language Minority Learners
2010 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL), Vol.44, No.4, p.669-699
USA Mainstream classes grade 5
EAL combined with 1 English/other participant in treatment group and 3 English/other participants in contrast group
Primarily Spanish
Control group=25 Treatment group=24
Matsumura, Garnier,
Investigating the Effectiveness of a
2010 The Elementary
USA Mainstream classes
EAL, NS, and teachers. EAL and
n/a TAKS group=1,229 DRP group=896
54
Correnti, Junker, and Bickel
Comprehensive Literacy Coaching Program in Schools with High Teacher Mobility
School Journal, Vol.111, No.1, p.35-62
grades 4 and 5
NS combined in both treatment groups. Some EAL results presented separately
Olson, and Land
A Cognitive Strategies Approach to Reading and Writing Instruction for English Language Learners In Secondary School
2007 Research in the Teaching of English, Vol.41, No.3, p.269-303
USA Grades 6 to 12 transition English language development classes, standard arts classes. 7% of participants in English-only programs
EAL, NS, and teachers. EAL and NS combined in treatment and control groups. Some EAL results presented separately
Spanish 94 teachers and approximately 2,000 pupils
Proctor, Dalton, Uccelli, Biancarosa, Mo, Snow, and Neugebauer
Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders
2011 Reading and Writing, 24:517-544
USA Mainstream grade 5 classes. Intervention performed in computer laboratory
EAL and NS combined in control and treatment groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish Control group=111 (of which 59 EAL) ICON group=129 (of which 59 EAL)
Schoenbrodt, Kerins, and Gesell
Using Narrative Language Intervention as a Tool to Increase Communicative Competence in Spanish-Speaking Children
2010 Language, Culture, and Curriculum, Vol.16, No.1, p.48-59
USA Participants attended mainstream public elementary school. Treatment was delivered in an after-school tutoring program for children aged 6 to 11
EAL only Spanish Treatment group one=6 Treatment group two=6
Short, Fidelman, & Louguit
Developing Academic Language in English Language Learners
2012 TESOL Quarterly 46(2), 334-
USA Content area and ESL classes
EAL only Spanish 24%-41%, Polish 6%, Arabic 5%-7%,
Comparison group=176, Treatment group=386
55
Through Sheltered Instruction
361 Gujurati, Turkish, Pilipino, Albanian
Snow, Lawrence, and White
Generating Knowledge of Academic Language Among Urban Middle School Students
2009 Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2:325-344
USA Mainstream grade 6 to grade 8 classes
EAL and NS. EAL and NS combined in treatment and comparison groups. EAL results presented separately
n/a Comparison group=133 Treatment group=256
Solari, and Gerber
Early Comprehension Instruction for Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners: Teaching Text-Level Reading Skills While Maintaining Effects on Word-Level Skills
2008 Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Vol23. Issue 4, p.155-168
USA Mainstream kindergarten classes
EAL only Spanish 82 across three treatment groups and categorization by at risk or not at risk of reading difficulties
Spycher Learning Academic Language through Science in Two Linguistically Diverse Kindergarten Classes
2009 The Elementary School Journal, Vol.109, No.4, p.359-379
USA Mainstream kindergarten class
EAL and NS combined in treatment and control groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish Control group=20 Intervention group=19
Tong, Irby, Lara-Alecio, Yoon, and Mathes
Hispanic English Learners' Responses to Longitudinal English Instructional Intervention and the Effect of Gender: A Multilevel Analysis
2010 The Elementary School Journal, Vol.110, No.4, p.542-566
USA Mainstream kindergarten to grade 2 classes
EAL only Spanish Control group=112 Treatment group=84
Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, and Kwok
Accelerating Early Academic Oral English Development in Transitional Bilingual and Structured English Immersion Programs
2008 American Educational Research Journal, Vol.45, No.4, p.1011-1044
USA Transitional bilingual education and structured English immersion classes
EAL only Spanish 534 over 4 treatment groups
56
Townsend, and Collins
Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an intervention study
2009 Reading and Writing, 22:993-1019
USA After school class
EAL only Spanish=68%, Vietnamese=16% Japanese=8%, Arabic=5%, Gujarati=3%
Treatment A=20 Treatment B=17
Troia
Migrant Students with Limited English Proficiency: Can Fast ForWord Language(trademark) Make a Difference in Their Language Skills and Academic Achievement?
2004 Remedial and Special Education, Vol.25, No.6, p.353-366
USA Mainstream public elementary classes grades 1 to 6
EAL only Spanish Control group=92 Treatment group=99
Vadasy and Sanders
Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics-Based Instruction for Low-Skilled Kindergarteners in the Context of Language Minority Status and Classroom Phonics Instruction
2010 Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.102, No.4, p.786-803
USA Mainstream kindergarten classes
EAL and NS combined in both treatment and control groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish=49%, Vietnamese=15% Somali=11%, Chinese=6%, Tagalog=3%
Control group=81 (of which 46 EAL) Treatment group=67 (of which 38 EAL)
Vadasy, and Sanders
Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first-graders: the influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes
2013 Reading and Writing, Vol26, p.821-843
USA Mainstream first grade classrooms
EAL and NS separated in treatment and control groups. EAL results presented separately
Spanish=64%, Vietnamese=9%, Chinese=6%, Somali=5%, Amharic=2%, Arabic=2%, French=2%, Russian=2%, Samoan=2%, Tagalog=2%, Cambodian=1%, Oromo=1%, Punjabi=1%, Tigrigna=1%
EAL group=95 (of which 48 in treatment condition) Non EAL group=85 (of which 43 in treatment condition)
57
Vaughn, Cirino, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Carlson, Hagan, Pollard-Durodola, Fletcher, and Francis
Effectiveness of a Spanish Intervention and an English Intervention for English-Language Learners at Risk for Reading Problems
2006 American Educational Research Journal, Vol.43, No.3, p.449-487
USA Bilingual Grade 1 classes
EAL only Spanish 171 across four groups
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan, Francis
Effectiveness of Spanish Intervention for First-Grade English Language Learners at Risk for Reading Difficulties
2006 Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.39, No.1, p.56-73
USA Bilingual Grade 1 classes
EAL only Spanish Comparison group=33 Treatment group=31
Recommended